THE TAO
Paul Humphries
I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
perception and awareness of "reality"?
I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've accidentally
forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For example, my age! I've
been in situations where I am not totally sure exactly how old I am (and
where I can not really be bothered to work it out!).
Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
believed? How does it work?!
Any ideas appreciated!
Cheers,
Paul.
JERRYBURKH
I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...(paul)
And you create a hole..... a space .. clear the shelf...
you cannot pour water into a full container.. Knowing can hinder full
experience? The child looks in wonder at all it see.
"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
perception and awareness of "reality"? (paul)
What does the knowing? When the knowing stops you cease to be that which does
the knowing? Or perhaps when you cease to be that which does the knowing .. the
knowing stops? Perhaps only for a second but if only for now then eternity.
Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
believed? How does it work?! (paul)
You will never "know" . Not knowing is the supreme equilizer.. we start here
& end here :-)
Any ideas appreciated!
Cheers, Paul.
We can all not know together... jer
k...@springhaven.org
>"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
>unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>How is this acheived?
by paying attention.
>Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
>related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
>perception and awareness of "reality"?
sometimes.
>Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
>realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
>What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
>believed? How does it work?!
talking in generalities:
if you know the world if flat, then you cannot learn the world is round.
if you know "god does not throw dice", then you cannot learn how to apply
quantum mechanics.
when dealing with the world, deal with the world, not its roundness
or flatness. that is to say one should set one's watch appropriately
when crossing time zones.
when dealing with the worlds, deal with the world, not its "dice"lessness
or quantumness. that is to say use your computer, when you are using your
computer.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
JayBuzin
>Hi!
hi Paul!
>I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
>ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
To perhaps amplify what peter and jerry wrote,
or turn the diamond to view another facetless-facet;
you might keep in mind that Taoism, in its context,
was at odds with Confucianism (among other schools).
>"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
>unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
Ho-shang Kung says, "'Learning' refers to knowledge
of administration and rhetoric, ritual and music."
Apparently these things
were rather expected of cultured folk.
Confucius emphasized a sort of practice starting with exteriors
while Lao-tzu said to get rid of wisdom and people would
simply become more natural. Taoism runs counter.
Reversal\return is the Way.
>How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
>related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
>perception and awareness of "reality"?
>
>I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've accidentally
>forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For example, my age! I've
>been in situations where I am not totally sure exactly how old I am (and
>where I can not really be bothered to work it out!).
>
>Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
>realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
>What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
>believed? How does it work?!
>
>Any ideas appreciated!
Apparently Yen Hui was a disciple of Confucius?
Never-the-less, he took upon himself a Taoist practice
of tso-wang. In _the Chuang-tzu_ at the end of Ch 6;
"Yen Hui said, 'I'm getting better.'
Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
'I have forgotten kindness and justice.'
'Fine, but that is not enough.'
On another occasion, they met again and Yen Hui
said, 'I've improved.'
Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
'I have forgotten rituals and music.'
'Good, but that is still not enuf.'
On another occasion they met and Yen Hui
said, 'I'm getting better.'
'Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
'I can sit right down and forget everything.'
Confucius was certainly disturbed by this and said, 'What
do you mean by sit right down and forget?'
Yen Hui replied, 'My limbs are without feeling and my mind
is without light. I have ignored my body and cast aside my
wisdom. Thus I am united with the Tao. This is what sitting
right down and forgetting is.'
Confucius said, 'If you are one with the great Way, then
you no longer have preferences. If you are one with the
cosmos, you are transformed. If this is what you have done,
then I would like to follow you.'
Paul Humphries
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> >"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> >unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
> >How is this acheived?
>
> by paying attention.
>
> >Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
> >related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
> >perception and awareness of "reality"?
>
> sometimes.
>
> >Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
> >realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
> >What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
> >believed? How does it work?!
>
> talking in generalities:
>
> if you know the world if flat, then you cannot learn the world is round.
> if you know "god does not throw dice", then you cannot learn how to apply
> quantum mechanics.
>
> when dealing with the world, deal with the world, not its roundness
> or flatness. that is to say one should set one's watch appropriately
> when crossing time zones.
> when dealing with the worlds, deal with the world, not its "dice"lessness
> or quantumness. that is to say use your computer, when you are using your
> computer.
Would you say the "unlearning" process can be started automatically by
relating to ideas such as "the namesless gives birth to the named; the
describable world eminates from an indescribable source". Realising that
meaning comes from reality, not from symbols?
Thanks for that - I found your reply very clear and direct.
Cheers!
Paul.
Paul Humphries
> Paul wondered:
>
> >Hi!
>
> hi Paul!
Hello again!
> >I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
> >ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
>
> To perhaps amplify what peter and jerry wrote,
> or turn the diamond to view another facetless-facet;
> you might keep in mind that Taoism, in its context,
> was at odds with Confucianism (among other schools).
>
> >"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> >unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>
> Ho-shang Kung says, "'Learning' refers to knowledge
> of administration and rhetoric, ritual and music."
>
> Apparently these things
> were rather expected of cultured folk.
> Confucius emphasized a sort of practice starting with exteriors
> while Lao-tzu said to get rid of wisdom and people would
> simply become more natural. Taoism runs counter.
> Reversal\return is the Way.
The only part of that I don't follow is the "..while Lao-tzu said to get rid
of wisdom and..". Surely to get rid of "fact" or "knowledge" (meaning static
knowledge, fixed concepts etc.) would mean that people would become more
natural. Yes - reversal/return.
> Apparently Yen Hui was a disciple of Confucius?
> Never-the-less, he took upon himself a Taoist practice
> of tso-wang. In _the Chuang-tzu_ at the end of Ch 6;
> "Yen Hui said, 'I'm getting better.'
> Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
> 'I have forgotten kindness and justice.'
> 'Fine, but that is not enough.'
(I'm confused - I thought Confucius believed in almost the opposite of
Taoism? Have I misunderstood?)
> On another occasion, they met again and Yen Hui
> said, 'I've improved.'
> Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
> 'I have forgotten rituals and music.'
> 'Good, but that is still not enuf.'
(Again, I would have thought Confucius wouldn't think forgetting was a good
idea?)
> On another occasion they met and Yen Hui
> said, 'I'm getting better.'
> 'Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
> 'I can sit right down and forget everything.'
> Confucius was certainly disturbed by this and said, 'What
> do you mean by sit right down and forget?'
(This makes more sense to me)
> Yen Hui replied, 'My limbs are without feeling and my mind
> is without light. I have ignored my body and cast aside my
> wisdom. Thus I am united with the Tao. This is what sitting
> right down and forgetting is.'
(I would have expected `... and my mind is without *rigidity*. I have
*looked after* my body and cast aside my *intellect*. Thus I am united with
the Tao. ...')
> Confucius said, 'If you are one with the great Way, then
> you no longer have preferences. If you are one with the
> cosmos, you are transformed. If this is what you have done,
> then I would like to follow you.'
Really! So does that mean that Confucius became a Taoist?!
I would appreciate help with my confusion about this!
It all sounds interesting...
Cheers,
Paul.
JayBuzin
>JayBuzin wrote:
>> Paul wondered:
[...]
>The only part of that I don't follow is the "..while Lao-tzu said to get rid
>of wisdom and..". Surely to get rid of "fact" or "knowledge" (meaning static
>knowledge, fixed concepts etc.) would mean that people would become more
>natural. Yes - reversal/return.
in Fung's _A Short History ..._
he says the Confucianists
were concerned with social institutions
while the Taoists weren't so much.
He writes, 'The farmers are simple in their living and
innocent in their thought. Seeing things from their point of
view, the Taoists idealized the simplicity of primitive society
and condemned civilization. They also idealized the
innocence of children and despised knowledge. In
the Lao-tzu it is said: "Let us have a small country ..." ... .'
>(I'm confused - I thought Confucius believed in almost the opposite of
>Taoism? Have I misunderstood?)
Your confusion might be due to my confusion.
Someday mebbe I'll learn to just keep my mouth shut.
Fung writes, "They are poles apart from one another,
yet they are also poles of one and the same axis. They both
express, in one way or another, the aspirations and
inspirations of the farmer."
>> On another occasion, they met again and Yen Hui
>> said, 'I've improved.'
>> Confucius said, 'What do you mean?'
>> 'I have forgotten rituals and music.'
>> 'Good, but that is still not enuf.'
>
>(Again, I would have thought Confucius wouldn't think forgetting was a good
>idea?)
In the CT (Chuang-tzu) it can very confusing be,
because at times Confucius appears as a great sage
and at other times he appears as a great fool.
>> Confucius said, 'If you are one with the great Way, then
>> you no longer have preferences. If you are one with the
>> cosmos, you are transformed. If this is what you have done,
>> then I would like to follow you.'
>
>Really! So does that mean that Confucius became a Taoist?!
To hear the Chuang-tzu tell it, yes.
By the time Confucius reached a ripe old age;
he, finally, was spontaneous in his actions.
>I would appreciate help with my confusion about this!
without confusion,
from wh'air would clarity arise?
eye may be better at confusing
than in clarifying.
>It all sounds interesting...
aye enjoys it berry much.
Sorry eye is a muddle-head.
-in the grove
{:-])))
k...@springhaven.org
>Would you say the "unlearning" process can be started automatically by
>relating to ideas such as "the namesless gives birth to the named; the
>describable world eminates from an indescribable source".
"relating to ideas" is a learning process in most cases.
and in this case i fear it is a learning process.
unlearning begins with doing, not dithering.
>Realising that meaning comes from reality, not from symbols?
meaning comes from the same place quality comes from.
symbols are the same as words.
meaning is limited by the faculty of sensation/mentation.
symbol/words are limited by the fact they are not big enough.
realizing either is to understand futility.
"unlearning" is not about futility.
k...@springhaven.org
sometimes function follows form.
doing sometimes teaches you what you are doing.
sometimes it is just an activity.
learning somtimes teaches you how to do something.
sometimes it is just an activity.
sometimes one must learn how to do something.
sometimes one must do something to learn how.
confucianism teaches through forms.
and is often trapped in empty ritual.
taoism teaches through formlessness.
and is often trapped in apathy and quietism.
but
confucianism cannot escape formlessness
taoism cannot escape form
while there are people involved.
* * *
in the _chuang tzu_ confucius is sometimes a sage and sometimes a fool.
lawrence day
Paul Humphries wrote:
> (...)
>
> (I'm confused - I thought Confucius believed in almost the opposite of
> Taoism? Have I misunderstood?)
imo opinion Confucius was a Taoist. Confucianism didn't yet exist.
But his focus on 'society' and the tao of man's relation to man
made a distinct philosophy from the fate (Lao) or nature (Chuang) of classical
Taoism.
It is easy to relate to other people as a 'Confucian' and to relate to nature or
oneself as a Taoist. They just address different areas of endevour.
You can even blend in Ch'an Buddhism as a 'religion' and still experience no
conflict.
Alas, Confucianism became somewhat rigid and dogmatic, but that can happen to
any philosophy.
In celebrating 'newbornness' and potential over rigid structure and 'learning'
Taoism has some defences built in.
btw, the 'Confucius' of Chuang's fables may not be the 'historical' Confucius,
but a teaching device.
'tis murky territory for sure, but interesting to explore..
--ld.
(...)
kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com
>Hi!
>
>I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
>ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
>
>"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
>unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>
>How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
>related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
>perception and awareness of "reality"?
>
>I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've accidentally
>forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For example, my age! I've
>been in situations where I am not totally sure exactly how old I am (and
>where I can not really be bothered to work it out!).
>
>Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
>realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
>What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
>believed? How does it work?!
>
>Any ideas appreciated!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul.
This was one of the phrases that put me off Taoism when I first picked
up TTC in my teens. There have been many other phrases that I scoffed
at too. I was thinking what kind of rubbish was it that I need to be
a zombie through life, not that it matters during work when at times
you just zombie along.
It slowly dawned on me after many years. It may well be a false dawn
so quoting from me may well bring you flames.
Here is my stab at that.
We have to see how we assimilate knowledge. To make sense of it all,
we need to compartmentalize and group the 'knowledge' that we have
learned.
I recalled that some psychological books that I have read claim that
we cannot 'remember' more than 6-8 items of information at any one
time. However, the way we grouped those info allows us to 'remember'
a lot more.
I play lots of chess at a high level. I am not an IM and will never
cross over to that level. For the rest of you who play chess
casually, you will make mistakes in your games as the possibilities of
your replies expand exponentially and you slog on thinking of moves
after moves and their variations tiring your mind. You will also
remember about 6-8 items to decide your reply.
I will also only be able to bear in mind the 6-8 items to help me
decide. The difference is that I will be thinking in terms of
vectorial attacks and lines of openings and game structure while you
will think of simple moves.
IMs and GMs will bear in mind also 6-8 items, but their level of items
will be far more lofty than mine.
In other others, we need to classify and collate what we know to
function normally in life.
We became used to that and we will keep on applying solutions which
work in the past to the problems of the tomorrow.
This further reinforce the structuring we do to new knowledge to
assimilate it into our minds. As with anything that rises must fall
and to know black you must know white, this structuring while very
useful to us have their drawbacks.
We end up peeping at the world around us in layers of nested blinkers
and miss the unseen interconnections about us.
We are like unsteady beginners in cycling, on a wobbly bicycle
noticing a small stone on the road ahead of us. We notice that stone
and while focusing on that stone, we miss seeing the rest of the road
with the result we hit that stone missing the rest of the wide road to
go around it.
The 'Man of Tao', will 'unlearn' those compartmentalization and do
away with those boundaries seeing it in the whole. Without those
framework to act, he will then rely on wuwei to guide him to the
appropriate action at the appropriate time.
With warm regards
The Idiotic Taoist
dao_d...@my-deja.com
kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> The 'Man of Tao', will 'unlearn' those compartmentalization and do
> away with those boundaries seeing it in the whole. Without those
> framework to act, he will then rely on wuwei to guide him to the
> appropriate action at the appropriate time.
>
I agree. Unless a person is raised by their parents to be a
'person of tao', they will have many learned behaviors that
will govern what they do and how they do it. One that would
follow the Tao would have to forget all the methodology and
reasoning vested by structured society on the 'proper' thing
to do, and start dealing with the world in a spontaneous fashion.
That would be the unlearning of tao. Unlearn the standard response.
Unlearn the standard method. Allow the situation to determine
the response. Flow as water with the moment.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
lawrence day
kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi!
> >
> >I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
> >ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
> >
> >"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> >unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
> >
> >How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information which is
> >related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just put after
> >perception and awareness of "reality"?
My take here is that 'forgetting' is closely related to 'looking into the wu'
in ttc verse one. Whatever is there gets subtracted/forgotten. But
eventually, reaching the empty zero point, a natural 'inversion' or
'inside-outting' leaves one at the 'hub', facing outwards towards all things
(as yu, the 10K of phenomenal reality).
One may be 'empty', a 'point/viewpoint' of te, but everything focusses around
it.
> >I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've accidentally
> >forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For example, my age! I've
> >been in situations where I am not totally sure exactly how old I am (and
> >where I can not really be bothered to work it out!)
Yes! Me too! But mine is easy to work out.
Remember what year it is, subtract fifty, add one.
I have to go through that process everytime someone asks.
> >
> >Which things should be "unlearned". Does it happen automatically by
> >realising that facts are blind and that names arise from the nameless?
> >What knowledge should be held as important? Can any "blind facts" be
> >believed? How does it work?!
> >
> >Any ideas appreciated!
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Paul.
>
> This was one of the phrases that put me off Taoism when I first picked
> up TTC in my teens. There have been many other phrases that I scoffed
> at too. I was thinking what kind of rubbish was it that I need to be
> a zombie through life, not that it matters during work when at times
> you just zombie along.
>
> It slowly dawned on me after many years. It may well be a false dawn
> so quoting from me may well bring you flames.
>
> Here is my stab at that.
>
> We have to see how we assimilate knowledge. To make sense of it all,
> we need to compartmentalize and group the 'knowledge' that we have
> learned.
>
> I recalled that some psychological books that I have read claim that
> we cannot 'remember' more than 6-8 items of information at any one
> time. However, the way we grouped those info allows us to 'remember'
> a lot more.
This would be like 6-8 categories? Thinking in trigrams/kua will always
produce 8
categories. (I imagine myself in the center with the 8 'boxes' circling.)
> I play lots of chess at a high level. I am not an IM and will never
> cross over to that level. For the rest of you who play chess
> casually, you will make mistakes in your games as the possibilities of
> your replies expand exponentially and you slog on thinking of moves
> after moves and their variations tiring your mind. You will also
> remember about 6-8 items to decide your reply.
>
> I will also only be able to bear in mind the 6-8 items to help me
> decide. The difference is that I will be thinking in terms of
> vectorial attacks and lines of openings and game structure while you
> will think of simple moves.
>
> IMs and GMs will bear in mind also 6-8 items, but their level of items
> will be far more lofty than mine.
Well, ahem (;-), I'm an IM, and my memory sucks compared to 20 years ago.
At one point, when I'd played maybe 150 tournament games, I could remember
every one, move for move. Now, a few thousand games later, I can't remember
what I played yesterday.
Fortunately memory is not so important in chess. You can just look at the
position on the board. How it arose is irrelevent. For calculating, the
'memory' is actually used in a forward direction, finding future
possibilities.
Early World Champ Emanual Lasker once wrote that he had spent the first half
of his life trying to memorize opening variations, and the second half trying
to forget them. I've often 'rediscovered' the same move I'd made in the same
position many years before. Maybe the memory is there in the unconscious, but
as far as I knew the position was 'fresh'. One embarassing moment occured
when I was staying with British GM Ray Keene in 1981 and he mentioned my game
against Scottish champ David Levy from the 1978 Buenos Aires Olympiad. "No
No," I said "I played him at the 1976 Olympiad at Haifa. We never played at
Buenos Aires." Keene raised his eyebrows. A few days later he invited Levy
over for dinner. "Well David," he commented drolly, "your game with Lawrence
from Buenos Aires didn't seem to make much impression on him. In fact he
denied playing it." Hmmm, consulted the archives, i ndeed we had played, but
he had blundered badly and I'd lost interest, and memory, of the short win.
It had no lesson to make it memorable. What stuck instead was the game he won
with some deep prepared variation two years earlier.
--lawrence
> In other others, we need to classify and collate what we know to
> function normally in life.
>
> We became used to that and we will keep on applying solutions which
> work in the past to the problems of the tomorrow.
>
> This further reinforce the structuring we do to new knowledge to
> assimilate it into our minds. As with anything that rises must fall
> and to know black you must know white, this structuring while very
> useful to us have their drawbacks.
>
> We end up peeping at the world around us in layers of nested blinkers
> and miss the unseen interconnections about us.
>
> We are like unsteady beginners in cycling, on a wobbly bicycle
> noticing a small stone on the road ahead of us. We notice that stone
> and while focusing on that stone, we miss seeing the rest of the road
> with the result we hit that stone missing the rest of the wide road to
> go around it.
>
> The 'Man of Tao', will 'unlearn' those compartmentalization and do
> away with those boundaries seeing it in the whole. Without those
> framework to act, he will then rely on wuwei to guide him to the
> appropriate action at the appropriate time.
>
Miller Jew
lawrence day <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote:
kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com wrote:
Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/
related ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
>
>"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
>unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>
>How is this acheived? Does it mean that "facts" or information
>which is related purely by words should be "forgotten" or just
>put after perception and awareness of "reality"?
I would agree with your later statement. But in offering an idea,
it's important this focus is, by its proclamation, *aspires*
toward "reality"; hence like renewed 'breathing' upon this,
becomes part of the 'natural' urge-to-be about realizing reality.
L (yo!:)
>My take here is that 'forgetting' is closely related to 'looking
>into the wu' in ttc verse one.
Okay (again) the 'focus' is into wu, or how Prof Cleary suggests,
this sublime 'formless awareness'.
L
>Whatever is there gets subtracted/ forgotten.
Perhaps "whatever is there" gets automatically under the subline
control of our formless awareness? I.e. it autonomizes all former
controls. Inversely speaking, one control is given up for
another? Like our sub/un-conscious coordinating capacity to tell
our muscles how to move; as in hand movements, without using
'words' to cognate/tell it so? And in getting back to PH's point
about the "shedding process" maybe it has validity here also?
with shedding one control for another? Or an I "reaching"? :-)
L
>But eventually, reaching the empty zero point, a natural
>'inversion' or 'inside-outting' leaves one at the 'hub', facing
>outwards towards all things (as yu, the 10K of phenomenal
>reality).
Yes, I see this. What faces outward (or immersion into this, and
sucking it out?) is ALSO our true nature? what faces inward --at
this level of great awareness-- is nothing. We are all about what
we do when we do it.
L
>One may be 'empty', a 'point/viewpoint' of te, but everything
>focusses around it.
Ancients say telepathy will supercede rational communicating
("eons" from now). It's sorta like 'empty'ing here but kinda not
you know what i mean :-)
K (yo too, nw's! :-)
>I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've
>accidentally forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For
>example, my age! I've been in situations where I am not totally
>sure exactly how old I am (and where I can not really be
>bothered to work it out!)
It's nice to know that in most cases those of the older set have
grown out of glamoured caprice.
L
>Yes! Me too! But mine is easy to work out.
>Remember what year it is, subtract fifty, add one.
>I have to go through that process everytime someone asks.
>G< & 'bare-it'? (ah.. i might take my last phrase back L :-)
jes kidden!
Zhou!
kha...@my-deja.com
Ah!! One of those semi-mythical beings from the
world of 64 squares.
Yours truly here will not have the chance to
cross-sword with you to explore ramifications of 8
items or categories or boxes that swirl around us.
If you condescend to look into the slums of those
lowly rated in ICC, you will find me lurking there
as TaoID - short for your Taoistic Idiot here.
But perhaps, you may have met my son in ICC. (info
in my ICC finger). He has the pathetic job of
trying to alleviate my chess level.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Brian Rogosky
Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
> ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
>
> "The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
>
I'm somewhat new to the traditional ideas of Tao, but I've been a
spiritual "seeker" years now, so I think I may have some idea about
this. In general, I think new knowledge/wisdom/truth cannot be
achieved without "leaving behind" all the previous
knowledge/wisdom/truth especially that which you believe based on the
testimony of others.
This "leaving behind" can form the basis for conscious experience of
the physical world as well as the spiritual (or mental or emotional).
Ex: Try to forget all the times you have seen the sun on a clear day,
and then begin experiencing it anew. But ___really___ experience it.
Forget how things should look, how you've ___learned___ they look and
how they have affected you in the past, and then you can really
experience it. The same method can be used when you seek spiritual
insight, or want to write a poem, or want to overcome your anger.
I remember a certain scene in Frank Herbert's __Children Of Dune__ (An
incredible series of books). The two children were approaching some
dangerous situation in which they would need utmost awareness. So they
put aside all their knowledge and skills and simply focused on their
senses.
Also from cognitive psychology, I know much of what we perceive is
shaped by what we have learned, i.e. the mind makes sense of sensory
perception. So if we put aside such preconcieved ideas of how the
world works, we will experience the world in new and perhaps truer ways.
That's all I got for now.
Brian
--The New/Old/Timeless Taoist
--
Brian Rogosky
Onstage Media, Inc. (www.onstagemedia.com)
Webmaster: Cognitive Science Web
(www.cognitivescience.org)
Brian Rogosky
> I recalled that some psychological books that I have read claim that
> we cannot 'remember' more than 6-8 items of information at any one
> time. However, the way we grouped those info allows us to 'remember'
> a lot more.
>
> I will also only be able to bear in mind the 6-8 items to help me
> decide. The difference is that I will be thinking in terms of
> vectorial attacks and lines of openings and game structure while you
> will think of simple moves.
>
> IMs and GMs will bear in mind also 6-8 items, but their level of items
> will be far more lofty than mine.
>
I think you're referring to the idea that a person can only retain 7 +
or - 2 items at a time (in what's called "working memory"). But you're
correct to say that people can group knowledge into what's called
"chunks". Example: remembering the number 5949300 as 59, 49, 300
instead of 5 9 4 9 3 0 0. This would backup your thinking on chess and
how you group moves into different strategies. This is typical of an
expert in any domain of knowledge.
> In other others, we need to classify and collate what we know to
> function normally in life.
>
> We became used to that and we will keep on applying solutions which
> work in the past to the problems of the tomorrow.
>
> This further reinforce the structuring we do to new knowledge to
> assimilate it into our minds. As with anything that rises must fall
> and to know black you must know white, this structuring while very
> useful to us have their drawbacks.
>
> We end up peeping at the world around us in layers of nested blinkers
> and miss the unseen interconnections about us.
>
> We are like unsteady beginners in cycling, on a wobbly bicycle
> noticing a small stone on the road ahead of us. We notice that stone
> and while focusing on that stone, we miss seeing the rest of the road
> with the result we hit that stone missing the rest of the wide road to
> go around it.
I'm an avid mountain biker -- and I agree. I've found the surest way
to hit a rock you're trying to avoid is to focus on it. The best way
to actually avoid it is to focus on where else you want to go. The
lesson for me in this is that wherever we focus, we will go. We can
choose what to focus on. Or to be good Taoists, we can choose to focus
on nothing and simply go where we are guided to be. This is Taoism to
me. Very difficult to forsake our knowledge and focus/will, but
ultimately it may bring happiness.
lawrence day
> ref: Subject: Re: THE TAO
>
> lawrence day <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote:
> kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/
> related ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
Incidentally, 'molting' as a snake or animal sheds its skin, has it's
own
hexagram in the I Ching, #49, Ko (787778).
> >
> >"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> >unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
Refreshing, like a bath scrapes away the dead skin.
> >
> >How is this acheived?
Perhaps an element is withdrawing attention from the external layers?
> Does it mean that "facts" or information
> >which is related purely by words should be "forgotten"
If you have the meaning you can forget the words, sez Chuang.
> or just
> >put after perception and awareness of "reality"?
>
> I would agree with your later statement. But in offering an idea,
> it's important this focus is, by its proclamation, *aspires*
> toward "reality"; hence like renewed 'breathing' upon this,
> becomes part of the 'natural' urge-to-be about realizing reality.
Reality is the 'territory' the senses take in.
Words are the metaphors to symbolize it.
Inspiration, like inbreath, is like a refreshing bath~~
looking inward (into the wu) 'sees Tao's wonders'.
Aspiration, like outbreath, allows proclamation~~
the world of words, the namable, Tao's manifestations.
> L (yo!:)
> >My take here is that 'forgetting' is closely related to 'looking
> >into the wu' in ttc verse one.
>
> Okay (again) the 'focus' is into wu, or how Prof Cleary suggests,
> this sublime 'formless awareness'.
Hi Z!,
Yes, the awareness of the formless seems right to me.
And it is a 'shedding' of over-attending to the formed/manifested outer
world.
> L
> >Whatever is there gets subtracted/ forgotten.
>
> Perhaps "whatever is there" gets automatically under the subline
> control of our formless awareness? I.e. it autonomizes all former
> controls. Inversely speaking, one control is given up for
> another? Like our sub/un-conscious coordinating capacity to tell
> our muscles how to move; as in hand movements, without using
> 'words' to cognate/tell it so? And in getting back to PH's point
> about the "shedding process" maybe it has validity here also?
> with shedding one control for another? Or an I "reaching"? :-)
That seems accurate to my understanding.
The 'unconscious' takes control of some processes that used to be
conscious.
For instance in morality/virtue. One can think in words and try to do
'good' but
there will always be conscious effort and its companion doubt.
But when the unconscious takes control then 'good' occurs spontaneously
without conscious effort or intent, therefore there is no doubt.
The doubt is 'shed' and original innocence arises.
Wu Wang.
> L
> >But eventually, reaching the empty zero point, a natural
> >'inversion' or 'inside-outting' leaves one at the 'hub', facing
> >outwards towards all things (as yu, the 10K of phenomenal
> >reality).
>
> Yes, I see this. What faces outward (or immersion into this, and
> sucking it out?) is ALSO our true nature? what faces inward --at
> this level of great awareness-- is nothing. We are all about what
> we do when we do it.
A curious paradox isn't it? Our 'te' is empty, selfless, and yet also
virtuous and effortless. A 'perspective' that is 'sucked' into reality.
> L
> >One may be 'empty', a 'point/viewpoint' of te, but everything
> >focusses around it.
>
> Ancients say telepathy will supercede rational communicating
> ("eons" from now). It's sorta like 'empty'ing here but kinda not
> you know what i mean :-)
I do. If Tao is Meaning and 'transcends' both being (yu) and non-being
(wu) then
the empty hub is full of Tao, and Tao becomes the medium to permit
telepathy.
from Lao: "The sage can know the world without leaving his room" and
"How do I know these things? From what is within me."
> K (yo too, nw's! :-)
> >I have joked before to friends, saying that I think I've
> >accidentally forgotten the things which are sort of useful. For
> >example, my age! I've been in situations where I am not totally
> >sure exactly how old I am (and where I can not really be
> >bothered to work it out!)
>
> It's nice to know that in most cases those of the older set have
> grown out of glamoured caprice.
>
> L
> >Yes! Me too! But mine is easy to work out.
> >Remember what year it is, subtract fifty, add one.
> >I have to go through that process everytime someone asks.
>
> >G< & 'bare-it'? (ah.. i might take my last phrase back L :-)
>
> jes kidden!
>
> Zhou!
Neat warping and woofing in this thread!
:-)
-l
lawrence day
kha...@my-deja.com wrote:
Not quite as rare as dragons. I'd guess there are several thousand IM's
and maybe 500 GM's. It's interesting how many posters into eastern
philosophy have played tournament chess. David Oller, John Neartour
(toshu),
Warren (Dharmatroll) as well as us.
All the years growing up and learning it I had thought it was a Buddhist
invention,
a tricky plan to sublimate aggression and avoid violence. Then in 1972,
just after I got the IM, Yugoslav historian Pavel Bidev claimed to have
found the origin in Taoist numerology from the Tang dynasty. So there
was an inherent connection between the chessboard's 64 squares and the
64 hexagrams of I Ching. Bidev produced many diagrams showing how the
original moves of the pieces could be derived from magic squares. And
this was plenty synchronous with my own
'number and symbol' studies which run parallel to Tai-chi-chuan based on
the
magic square 492
357
816
The 8-trigrams (kua) fit in the boxes in the cyclical arrangement (with
chen on the eastern horizon.) Standing in the centre there is a
harmonious balance where
each axis adds up to 15, so if you look in one direction you can deduce
also what is behind you. This 'field' is harmonious and balanced and
provided for some very powerful exercises in moving meditation. Notice,
regarding the 8 things one can hold in one's mind, that the 8 positions
make an extraordinarily concise and economic information storage system.
I read somewhere long ago (Da Liu?) that Tai-chi Chuan
was also based on this paradigm, but I don't know enough about the
physical exercises to understand in much detail.
> Yours truly here will not have the chance to
> cross-sword with you to explore ramifications of 8
> items or categories or boxes that swirl around us.
>
> If you condescend to look into the slums of those
> lowly rated in ICC, you will find me lurking there
> as TaoID - short for your Taoistic Idiot here.
Aha! So far I haven't played there. I know too many people
who have 'fallen in' and spend all their time there ;-)
btw, if you go to the University of Pittsburg chess library you can find
a file of
many hundreds of my games.
> But perhaps, you may have met my son in ICC. (info
> in my ICC finger). He has the pathetic job of
> trying to alleviate my chess level.
:-)
> > > In other others, we need to classify and
> collate what we know to
> > > function normally in life.
> > >
> > > We became used to that and we will keep on
> applying solutions which
> > > work in the past to the problems of the
> tomorrow.
> > >
> > > This further reinforce the structuring we do
> to new knowledge to
> > > assimilate it into our minds. As with
> anything that rises must fall
> > > and to know black you must know white, this
> structuring while very
> > > useful to us have their drawbacks.
> > >
> > > We end up peeping at the world around us in
> layers of nested blinkers
> > > and miss the unseen interconnections about us.
The kua diagram is extremely helpful for this.
It is precisely about interconnectivity.
>
> > >
> > > We are like unsteady beginners in cycling, on
> a wobbly bicycle
> > > noticing a small stone on the road ahead of
> us. We notice that stone
> > > and while focusing on that stone, we miss
> seeing the rest of the road
> > > with the result we hit that stone missing the
> rest of the wide road to
> > > go around it.
> > >
> > > The 'Man of Tao', will 'unlearn' those
> compartmentalization and do
> > > away with those boundaries seeing it in the
> whole. Without those
> > > framework to act, he will then rely on wuwei
> to guide him to the
> > > appropriate action at the appropriate time.
> > >
> > > With warm regards
> > >
> > > The Idiotic Taoist
> >
> >
Interesting!
--lawrence
lawrence day
> In article <3753E191...@netcraft.com>,
> Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/related
> > ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
> >
> > "The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
> > unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
> >
> Hello,
> I'm somewhat new to the traditional ideas of Tao, but I've been a
> spiritual "seeker" years now, so I think I may have some idea about
> this. In general, I think new knowledge/wisdom/truth cannot be
> achieved without "leaving behind" all the previous
> knowledge/wisdom/truth especially that which you believe based on the
> testimony of others.
Hi Brian,
I certainly agree with you here.
Anybody else's testimony can never be more than a 'pointer'.
Thinking for oneself is a key element.
The 'testimony' of 'authority' certainly gets 'shedded' along the way.
> This "leaving behind" can form the basis for conscious experience of
> the physical world as well as the spiritual (or mental or emotional).
> Ex: Try to forget all the times you have seen the sun on a clear day,
> and then begin experiencing it anew. But ___really___ experience it.
> Forget how things should look, how you've ___learned___ they look and
> how they have affected you in the past, and then you can really
> experience it. The same method can be used when you seek spiritual
> insight, or want to write a poem, or want to overcome your anger.
>
> I remember a certain scene in Frank Herbert's __Children Of Dune__ (An
> incredible series of books).<--
Yo! Absolutely. Classics.
> The two children were approaching some
> dangerous situation in which they would need utmost awareness. So they
> put aside all their knowledge and skills and simply focused on their
> senses.
>
> Also from cognitive psychology, I know much of what we perceive is
> shaped by what we have learned, i.e. the mind makes sense of sensory
> perception. So if we put aside such preconcieved ideas of how the
> world works, we will experience the world in new and perhaps truer ways.
I agree. 'Preconception' certainly gets 'shed'.
The 'new' perspective is novel and innocent, and thereby powerful.
>
>
> That's all I got for now.
'twas a delight imo!
>
>
> Brian
> --The New/Old/Timeless Taoist
>
> --
> Brian Rogosky
> Onstage Media, Inc. (www.onstagemedia.com)
> Webmaster: Cognitive Science Web
> (www.cognitivescience.org)
>
Miller Jew
Brian Rogosky <brog...@onstagemedia.com> wrote:
Paul Humphries <p...@netcraft.com> wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>I would like to ask a question (for any comments/discussions/
>related ideas) relating to the "shedding process" of Taoism...
>"The man of intellect learns something every day. The man of Tao
>unlearns something every day until he gets back to non-doing".
Hello Brian
Welcome!
You wrote:
BR
>Hello,
>I'm somewhat new to the traditional ideas of Tao, but I've been
>a spiritual "seeker" years now, so I think I may have some idea
>about this. In general, I think new knowledge/wisdom/truth
>cannot be achieved without "leaving behind" all the previous
>knowledge/wisdom/truth especially that which you believe based
>on the testimony of others. <--- haha.. actually I'm enjoying
'your' testimonial share :-) 'tho understandably coming from your
spiritual position.
BR ( i repeat):
>In general, I think new knowledge/wisdom/truth cannot be
>achieved without "leaving behind" all the previous
>knowledge/wisdom/truth...
Overall I agree with this.
In adding to this, I think part of the problem-'solving' "leaving
behind" must come from 'hind'-sight to en-'light' it's receptivity.
In today's western ways, our democratic mass-public education arose
only recently, say, within the last 200? years. Before (particularly in
the east) education was individual and specialized. In other
words, what was then intimately* involved between a teacher and
student is now *generalized* between one teacher and many
students. .
Yet I do not criticize either evolutionarily-necessitated
methods, rather, what I depict (below, pulled from my fomer
spiritual training notes) may start to bridge each other now.
(and roughly simplified):
WEST EAST
groups individuals
knowledge wisdom
objective civilization subjective culture
mechanical development mystical development
standardization uniqueness
mass education specialized training
science religion
memory training meditation
investigation reflection
In conclusion (and) simply stated from this, the 'east' needs
"knowledge" and the offering of information. The 'west' needs "wisdom"
and the technique of meditation. "Truth" may unfold from their
integration.
Regards,
Zhou
kha...@spamoff.hotmail.com
Nice to know that from the several millions who play chess, there are
several thousand IMs and a few hundred GMs. We are looking a very
skewed Bell curve.
I tried to discard those 8 things in some of my bullet and blitz games
and to flow with it.
At times, it work and gave me some wonderful games. More often than
not, my queen, pawns and pieces flowed away from me and I woke up only
when the game was irretrievably down the tube.
>> Yours truly here will not have the chance to
>> cross-sword with you to explore ramifications of 8
>> items or categories or boxes that swirl around us.
>>
>> If you condescend to look into the slums of those
>> lowly rated in ICC, you will find me lurking there
>> as TaoID - short for your Taoistic Idiot here.
>
>Aha! So far I haven't played there. I know too many people
>who have 'fallen in' and spend all their time there ;-)
Dangerous and addictive place to go to.
JayBuzin
[...]
> Like our sub/un-conscious coordinating capacity to tell
>our muscles how to move; as in hand movements, without using
>'words' to cognate/tell it so? And in getting back to PH's point
>about the "shedding process" maybe it has validity here also?
>with shedding one control for another? Or an I "reaching"? :-)
reminds me of, 'A chih does not reach.'
"Yueh Kuang made no comment on the statement,
but immediately touched the table with the handle of a fly whisk,
saying: 'Does it reach or does it not?'
The visitor answered: 'It does.' Yueh then lifted the fly whisk
and asked: 'If it reaches, how can it be taken away?'"
'According to Yueh Kuang, however,
if the reaching is really reaching, then it
cannot be taken away.'
m'ore or less and less
-apparently reaching-without-reaching
from Fung's _Short Hx_