dao and science

[{:-])))]

dao chang wu wei
dao chang wu ming

Somewhere in the DDJ
those two phrases appear.

If wu wei means without intent
and if wu ming means without name
then it gets me to wondering about science.

Doing experiments is intentional.
Developing theories is naming.

Replicating what is spontaneous
might be an oxymoron.

While there can be a wei wu wei of science
similar to how Cook Ding carves an ox,
a dao of science, so to speak,
and when everything clicks into place
there can be a flash of effortless enlightenment,
I kinda wonder if the scientific method is
in some ways anti-thetical to Daoism.

To look through scopes,
to carve and differentiate,
to name and try to find limits
of what could be unlimited,
would Zz not rather wag
his tale in the mud?

Would Lao of old have not
simply left things be?

- along the Hao River
the scientist in me seeks -

[linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:

> Replicating what is spontaneous
> might be an oxymoron.

The decay of individual nuclei is spontaneous and cannot be predicted,
but a sufficiently large enough sample of Carbon-14 isotope will always
decay to one-half of it's initial population in 5,730 years, as surely
as a river runs to the sea. So there is an underlying Way, and
scientists are interested in learning this.

[{:-])))]

Sounds
kinda like the stuff
statisticians are made of.

- aum

[linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:

> If wu wei means without intent
> and if wu ming means without name
> then it gets me to wondering about science.
>

> I kinda wonder if the scientific method is
> in some ways anti-thetical to Daoism.

Bad science is anti-thetical to Daoism. Some people want to use
climate science, for example, to effect political change. This is
science with intent.

Good science simply takes the observations that are made, and proposes a
model to explain how they change. Even Master Lao Tzu did this:

If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.

If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.

If you want to take something,
you must first allow it to be given.

This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are.

[Shazi]

linuxgal wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> If wu wei means without intent
>> and if wu ming means without name
>> then it gets me to wondering about science.
>>> I kinda wonder if the scientific method is
>> in some ways anti-thetical to Daoism.
>
> Bad science is anti-thetical to Daoism.
> Some people want to use climate science,
> for example, to effect political change.
> This is science with intent.

indeed. but the intent
does not make the science bad
only if the science is fiction,
in which case it isn't science.

> Good science simply takes the observations that are made,
> and proposes a model to explain how they change.

science often goes beyond observation.
science can create artificial things.
such things can help,
but often do great harm.

> Even Master Lao Tzu did this:

unimportant nit to pick: "tzu" means "master"
so saying master lao tzu
is a bit redundant: master old master.

> If you want to shrink something,
> you must first allow it to expand.
>
> If you want to get rid of something,
> you must first allow it to flourish.
>
> If you want to take something,
> you must first allow it to be given.
>
> This is called the subtle perception
> of the way things are.

i like your post.
please forgive my nitpick.

--
-shazi

[Shazi]

jz wrote:
> dao chang wu wei
> dao chang wu ming

hi j -- i've been way-faring in brazil lately,
now in london doing nothing for a day,
so here i am...been a while.

i mite think
that "dao chang" mite be "fei chang dao"
for dao changes, or dao is in the changes.

funny you mention cook ding.
he carved, while still wuwei.

i see scientific method as observing nature.
laozi said that there are two Ways to observe nature:
without desire--intention--one can observe the wonder,
the mystical, a cat's miao or so.
with an intent, on can observe the boundaries
maybe science does this very well,
but scientific method sets aside the intention
or better said, the hypothesis,
when it proves false.

does laozi say that one way of observing
is better than the other?
no...he said
"these two go together,
but are differently named;"

observation, even with intent to observe,
does not act on things, mostly...
hence scientific observation can be wuwei.

but science can go beyond observation
science can act on things,
changing their form
to create something artificial
such science might not be wuwei.

is science dao? no.
but there may be a dao of science,
and "good science",
whatever that may mean,
may be ziran...

deep-ends.

--
-shazi

[linuxgal]

Shazi wrote:

> i like your post.
> please forgive my nitpick.
>

When [a great woman] makes a mistake, she realizes it.
Having realized it, she admits it.
Having admitted it, she corrects it.
She considers those who point out her faults
as her most benevolent teachers.

[TeeJay]

Lao was spelling out his methodology much like the way Bacon described his. He said its best not to desire to find something out but rather to gather the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.
The philosophers of Bacon's day were intent on using their reasoning to rationalize God and Bacon said no, just observe the facts and with no intention in mind and let discovery arise on its own.
I don't think a pragmatist like Lao was much of a mystic. It seems to me that the ones who see mysticism in Taoism are shaping their own reality to find some meaning in abstractions. As David Hume said, there is what is and what ought to be. Many people see what they want to see to fit in with their own belief as if it "ought to be so". Let so be so. Chuang-tzu mentioned that knowledge is limitless (epistemological) and man is limited and to go after the unlimited with what is limited is dangerous. Lao reflected on this also saying "abandon knowledge" and it could be that he meant forget about epistemology and the hunt for knowledge. Let it be! Let it be! Nietzsche didn't take heed and went mad. (It could have been the VD though....but then again he was a misogynist?)

> does laozi say that one way of observing
> is better than the other?
> no...he said
> "these two go together,
> but are differently named;"

Inherent emotional intelligence (fight or flight) and logical intelligence (1+1=2). They both operate at the same time within.

> observation, even with intent to observe,
> does not act on things, mostly...
> hence scientific observation can be wuwei.
>
> but science can go beyond observation
> science can act on things,
> changing their form
> to create something artificial
> such science might not be wuwei.

How can using that which exists be artificial? A human being is of Tao (whether they realize it or not) and whatever the creation of the human being is, it is also from the attributes from Tao.
There's no magic in Tao. It is the Way it is.

> is science dao? no.

You are saying what Tao is by what it is not.
Lao didn't even know what it was.

> but there may be a dao of science,
> and "good science",

When beauty is seen as beauty people wanna look good, feel good, taste good...forget about good and bad, they arise mutually.

[{:-])))]

TeeJay wrote:
> shazi wrote:
>> jz wrote:
>
>> > dao chang wu wei
>> > dao chang wu ming
>>
>> hi j -- i've been way-faring in brazil lately,
>> now in london doing nothing for a day,
>> so here i am...been a while.

Good to sea people.
Without different povs
there is very little to say.
Possibly there is nothing.

[ snip ...]

>> > - along the Hao River
>> > the scientist in me seeks -
>>
>> i mite think
>> that "dao chang" mite be "fei chang dao"
>> for dao changes, or dao is in the changes.

When I ponder how nothing changes
and how nothing stays the same,
they may or may not be the same nothing.

>> funny you mention cook ding.
>> he carved, while still wuwei.
>>
>> i see scientific method as observing nature.
>> laozi said that there are two Ways to observe nature:
>> without desire--intention--one can observe the wonder,
>> the mystical, a cat's miao or so.
>> with an intent, on can observe the boundaries
>> maybe science does this very well,
>> but scientific method sets aside the intention
>> or better said, the hypothesis,
>> when it proves false.
>
>Lao was spelling out his methodology much like the way Bacon described his. He said its best not to desire to find something out but rather to gather the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.
>The philosophers of Bacon's day were intent on using their reasoning to rationalize God and Bacon said no, just observe the facts and with no intention in mind and let discovery arise on its own.
>I don't think a pragmatist like Lao was much of a mystic. It seems to me that the ones who see mysticism in Taoism are shaping their own reality to find some meaning in abstractions. As David Hume said, there is what is and what ought to be. Many people see what they want to see to fit in with their own belief as if it "ought to be so". Let so be so. Chuang-tzu mentioned that knowledge is limitless (epistemological) and man is limited and to go after the unlimited with what is limited is dangerous. Lao reflected on this also saying "abandon knowledge" and it could be that he meant forget about epistemology and the hunt for knowledge. Let it be! Let it be! Nietzsche didn't take heed and went mad. (It could have been the VD though....but then again he was a misogynist?)

Excellent points, imo.

Dao may be found in change.

A zone chaulk full of emptiness
without leaving a room
there is plenty
to be found within.

>> does laozi say that one way of observing
>> is better than the other?
>> no...he said
>> "these two go together,
>> but are differently named;"

The TTC does appear to me to be pragmatic
and to have its very own Tao, which it puts
nice and neat, into words, even to an extent
in which is articulated what is not-Tao.

>Inherent emotional intelligence (fight or flight) and logical intelligence (1+1=2). They both operate at the same time within.
>
>> observation, even with intent to observe,
>> does not act on things, mostly...
>> hence scientific observation can be wuwei.
>>
>> but science can go beyond observation
>> science can act on things,
>> changing their form
>> to create something artificial
>> such science might not be wuwei.
>
>How can using that which exists be artificial? A human being is of Tao (whether they realize it or not) and whatever the creation of the human being is, it is also from the attributes from Tao.
>There's no magic in Tao. It is the Way it is.

A war horse is not a natural horse.
Zz appears not to approve much, if at all,
of the Polo method by which many died.

There can be many Tao.
Zz had his. The TTC has its.

Da Dao could be in a class
beyond classifications. Except it's
modified by a Da. Even tho it is the
smallest of small in a way too.
Least of the least, at least.
A very of very. Verily.
Eye say! Old chaps.

>When beauty is seen as beauty people wanna look good, feel good, taste good...forget about good and bad, they arise mutually.

I like the way you said that.

Makes a fine point
out of a leafy branch
broken off a huge tree
in a bamboo grove.

[kamerm]

{:-]))) wrote:
> dao chang wu wei
> dao chang wu ming
>
> Somewhere in the DDJ
> those two phrases appear.
>
> If wu wei means without intent
> and if wu ming means without name
> then it gets me to wondering about science.
>
> Doing experiments is intentional.
> Developing theories is naming.
>
> Replicating what is spontaneous
> might be an oxymoron.
>
> While there can be a wei wu wei of science
> similar to how Cook Ding carves an ox,
> a dao of science, so to speak,
> and when everything clicks into place
> there can be a flash of effortless enlightenment,
> I kinda wonder if the scientific method is
> in some ways anti-thetical to Daoism.

"Science" can be an art, a craft, an education, a religion

science can be about how things work, which is from the same source as Dao

science as a craft, is akin to carving a succession of oxen of bellstands
science as a religion is seeking an Eternal Name

the latter is Bu Dao, but is also non-Science,
for those who don't take science as their Religion.

> To look through scopes,
> to carve and differentiate,
> to name and try to find limits
> of what could be unlimited,
> would Zz not rather wag
> his tale in the mud?
>
> Would Lao of old have not
> simply left things be?

Lao of old earned and ate clean food, had a safe place to sleep, friends
with whom to converse, youngsters and seekers to educate, a Library to tend
Like Lao of old, Zz wrote his Immortal Works after retiring in good standing
from Public Service

both tread lightly, leaving enduring traces only of their Generosity,
but they earned their keep, without leaving enduring traces of contention
in the times before the were Lao of old or Zz

> - along the Hao River
> the scientist in me seeks -

-k

[{:-])))]

kamerm wrote:

>science can be about how things work, which is from the same source as Dao

I would tend to think, with Daoism,
that the source would be Dao.

Unless the idea is with Wu
being the source of Dao, so to speak.

I'm still uncertain
if my science projects project me
into a realm contra-indicated by my ism
of what Daojia ultimately is.

From Cook Ding's pov, the bull is.

From the bull's pov, it might prefer
not to be carved in such a Way,
nor in any way.

Tis a funny flipping and flopping
my brain seams to enjoy doing
without getting much
of anything done.

Reality is bull.

- metaphorically

[kamerm]

{:-]))) wrote:
> kamerm wrote:
>
>> science can be about how things work, which is from the same source
>> as Dao
>
> I would tend to think, with Daoism,
> that the source would be Dao.

TTC 25 (F&E xlat, partial)
..
Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

?

-k

[{:-])))]

kamerm wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> kamerm wrote:
>>
>>> science can be about how things work, which is from the same source
>>> as Dao
>>
>> I would tend to think, with Daoism,
>> that the source would be Dao.
>
>TTC 25 (F&E xlat, partial)
>..
>Man follows Earth.
>Earth follows heaven.
>Heaven follows the Tao.
>Tao follows what is natural.
>
>?

ren fa di,
di fa tian,
tian fa dao,
dao fa zi ran.

Zi ran, supposedly,
could be said to mean or refer to
"of itself so" or self-so, of itself, etc.

http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/chap25.htm#top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziran

http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com/2009/09/tzu-jan.html

Way cool stuff.

[TeeJay]

A theoretical physicist (Lawrence Krause) was talking about nothing.
He said that when he explains how the universe is expanding, they ask him "What does it expand into?"
He says it expands into nothing.
He said the philosophers say "Impossible!"
And when they tell him why, he says to them,
"You know a lot about nothing"

"The Land of Not Anything At All"

"Always passionless, thereby observe the subtle; ever intent, thereby observe the apparent." (Cleary)
To eye, this means to look inside of you without being emotional so as to cultivate what lay fallow.
Ye reap what ye sew...so take the shit and grow flowers...sum say sew.
Shit happens on the outside so leave it there, but be aware of what it may grow inside of you.
So let the shit stormers crap outside.
Listen to their hollowness afterwards as they tremble down. They can only respect you more for taking what they offer. Even though you may gain through their loss, if you don't dwell on it they won't know.
Zhuangzi said he knew someone who had a clear distinction between the inner and outer.
He may have known the difference because he had the highest emotional intelligence to match his highest rational intelligence.
Who can argue with this? Who can argue with that?
But I think Zhuangzi said he knew too much about it and became complete. He may have blossomed too soon and then somebody picked his flowers.

ZZ...
"The one and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!"

Alone at Walden, Thoreau said he has three chairs...one chair for himself, one for a friend and one for society. He didn't move and let things be. He had a mind that he could wear thin throughout society. So he thought he better not move and let society come to him.

"A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels" (Cleary)

When the particle physicists were colliding in the Hadron collider, they were looking for the Higg's bosun particle. (Tsk, tsk) They did see a particle that wasn't there. It had moved somewhere else from where they looked. But they knew it had been there. So this was empirical proof to them and what did they do? They gave it a name even though it doesn't want to be permanent.
That little guy left today for Yueh and arrived in
yesterday. But they'll keep tracking it because they know no end....punching cork in water playing dog eat cat..cat eat mouse...mouse eat cheese...and cheese just smells..let them be!...they'll eventually find nothing.
To me, eye says "Eureka! The strong man put the boat back"...maybe a bit back into yesterday but I can still use it today.
Science needs to clean up its mess, but it can be taught to clean up after itself. But it hasn't filled the houses with enough jewels yet, but they will find them too costly to keep. So when there is only nothing left, then science will still be something. I should live so long to return to the root and give back the form I was given...no footprints in the sand...no one to track me...maybe I'll be playing hide and seek me....can I be the water?

[{:-])))]

TeeJay wrote:

>...maybe I'll be playing hide and seek me....can I be the water?

Definitely.

As temperature looks after you.