Earth's land area is finite, therefore food is finite.
If food (and other resources) are finite, then humans cannot eternally coexist in abundance.
Humans must compete for resources.
You are unable to simply "live in harmony with the universe maaan" due to the need to compete for resources to actually live.
The dao doesn’t say violence can be eliminated. It says that the best way to achieve things is not through violence.
The great principle of Heaven and earth is to treat public property as such and private property as such. Knowing this principle, which of us is a thief, and at the same time which of us is not a thief?'
>capitalism is when you acknowledge finity applies to some things
9 months ago
Anonymous
The earth is an open system, not closed. The sun ejaculates more energy upon us than we can use. It is excess not scarcity which rules us. Cf. Bataille
9 months ago
Anonymous
>finite thing equals we must compete for thing
Yeah, capitalist mindrape. Are you going to give us the 'land of barter' cope?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you must eat food to survive >yeah, okay FRIEDMAN
land area may be finite (you can still reclaim land like the dutch and japanese, so not really) but food is hardly finite in the same way. stop being so autistic
Drain the sea, you still have finite land. Use it all for food, end up stacking aeroponics or whatever upon it. Eventually you run out of enough water to either drink or use on food production. Man must compete for what's left or accept death.
The earth is an open system, not closed. The sun ejaculates more energy upon us than we can use. It is excess not scarcity which rules us. Cf. Bataille
Cool quotes bro. The sun alone doesn't grow food. Hang on, maybe you're on to something, let me just pull up the Frenchman: >Now in the corner of a hallway there was a saucer of milk for the cat. "Milk is for the pussy, isn't it?" said Simone. "Do you dare me to sit in the saucer?"
You're right. I understand now.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>competition means that we cannot question irrational imbalances in wealth
Tard
9 months ago
Anonymous
Question it all you want, Socrates.
But abstaining from the competition just means forfeiting and losing.
You will never escape the Demiurge's game no matter how much book cope you consoome.
9 months ago
Anonymous
nta
The supposed scarcity of food is such a moronic take in apology for capitalism. There is such an abundance of food that we actually have to burn tons of it to justify the unnatural state of profit-driven economies.
Collaboration is closer to human nature than competition. Awaken from your American brainwashing.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Where at all did you extrapolate that from what I wrote?
land area may be finite (you can still reclaim land like the dutch and japanese, so not really) but food is hardly finite in the same way. stop being so autistic
Read Confuscious. I would not say that he refutes Taoism but consider how his philosophy differs from Taoism and then consider why Confuscian thought dominated the Far East to a greater degree than Taoism.
Zen Buddhism was invented because buddhists couldn't refute the daoism so they had to make an entire new religion that's just daoism with Buddha plastered over it.
What is "the logic" of Taoism?
I've always seen Taoism as including experiential approach, which is hierarchically higher than the so-called logical approach. It's about inner work, not about presenting an argument.
In other words, if you somehow make a case for Taoism being wrong, Taoists likely won't care.
I'm personally inclined toward Taoism but I think that in the end even the label and concepts of Taoism need to be dropped. Before that, they can be used provisionally as a tool.
Pretty much all Aristotelian and Modern Logic "refutes" Taoism insofar as it dogmatized LEM and PNC which the yin yang seems to imply is some sort of dialectical or dialetheist logic. But the taoist can claim that their logic refutes the other's as well. Like most issues in philosophy, it comes down to intuitions
Daoism doesnt necessarily say yin is yang ina logical sense. It would say that it is not possible to distinguish pure yin from pure yang.
For example, take white and black. In essence white is not black. Yet they are totally interchangeable. When one culture imagines nothingness they may imagine white, whereas another may imagine black. I could have white represent yin and black represent yang if I wanted. Although they are opposites, only by convention do they achieve their speakable differences.
> That's linguistic structuralism
Ok, that’s probably not accurate because you can’t project shit like that onto ancient texts so anachronistically, but I have no idea what that is > what of the yin in yang
In neoconfucian cosmology yin and yang are combined in various ways to produce the five phases. That is not specifically a daoist thing
9 months ago
Anonymous
>anachronistic
You're the one reducing metaphysical concepts to linguistic constructs. >I don't understand
Read more, homosexual >combinations of opposites
Opposites cannot combine according to LEM / PNC >inb4 b-b-but i dun wanna read more, daoism axshually encourages my anti intellectualism pseuding ! (protip: it doesn't)
9 months ago
Anonymous
>2023 >Lenin Engels Marx / Misc Nikita Castro
9 months ago
Anonymous
Law of Excluded Middle and Principle of Non-Contradiction
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
> Opposites cannot combine according to LEM / PNC
So every color between white and black contradicts the LEM / PNC? > Read more, homosexual
Reading does not mean specifically reading your weird language shit > You're the one reducing metaphysical concepts to linguistic constructs.
Except I never did. That was how you interpreted my post.
Stick to basic white b***h interpretations of yoga. Grifted homosexuals actually believe the dumb shit asian coomers feed them lmao
Why the afression?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>reading does not mean blah blah blah
Bro. Just admit yr a poser who has only read DDJ and leave the convo for the pros >>yr post >speakable difference
Yin yang / dao / taiji is metaphysical not linguistic
9 months ago
Anonymous
So because I used the word speakable you think my whole post was about language? By speakable I meant that there are no differences between pure yin and pure yang that you can include in a definite proposition or predication, which is the same as saying they are indistinguishable. >Just admit yr a poser who has only read DDJ and leave the convo for the pros
What we are currently talking about isn’t even in the ddj. You keep obsessing over yin and yang despite that coming from neoconfucianism and chinese medicine. The unity of opposites as I am talking about it is in zhuangzi but not the dao de jing, in the dao de jing it is presented as merely an alternation between the opposites in time which because of their necessity cannot be contravened through effort, implying the detachment of the sage. Which is why “therefore the sage does not try” comes after “hard follows soft” etc.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Pure yin and pure yang beget one another but are not identical. One might say that difference as first principle creates identity even.
I think it is less A = - A
And moreso A -> -A & -A -> A
I also think yin and yang are both predicated... elextive affinites if ya will de signature rerum n whatnot
Suppose we switch black n white.
Do we also switch man and woman? Heaven and earth?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Maximum cope.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not an argument
9 months ago
Anonymous
Maximum cope.
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
9 months ago
Anonymous
> The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’
Incorrect.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Is this not standard Hegelianism? That is, a != a because differentiation is implied in formula's structure?
Marxists are just weaksauce Hegelians anyway. Idea>materia
9 months ago
Anonymous
I never said they were identical. Yes, black and white are not identical. The point is they are interchangeable in terms of the actual effects that they have.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Also >do we also switch man and woman
No because they are not perfect metaphysical opposites.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Doesn't Daoism claim so however? If we are leaving texts behind might as well say black n white are not pure opposites either. N if we switched b n w on yi n yang what would go for other opposites? Would they stay same cause arbitrary or switch too? You answered not
9 months ago
Anonymous
No. In the sayings of ancestor Lü he states that when the ancients said “cleave to the feminine” they were actually “referring to something else.” Male and female are used as signs of a dual that is real, not literally man and woman.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>one cherrypicked quote that misunderstand entire argument in first place
You are ignant, kid. Buh bye
9 months ago
Anonymous
The answer is all opposites are interchangeable. You accused me of leaving texts behind so that is why I “cherry picked” a quote to show that daoism does not in fact claim what you said. I didn’t say that no opposites would “switch” I said that all opposites are interchangeable, only men and women dont get switched because they aren’t really opposites.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If yin was light and white instead of dark and black would yin still be woman? Would it still be wet? Or would it be dry? I'm asking about the associations between yin and yin and yang and yang elements not the provisional nature of the categories of elements themselves which sure may be nominalist, however, daoism in my readings is quite essentializing about such dualisms even if ultimately nondual.
Would it make sense to call light the mother of all forms? Darkness the father?
If you answer yes then I think you are a cultural relativist and not a true daoist
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yin is not dark or a woman. Those are just SYMBOLS. I already explained that. Cultural relativism has nothing to do with this as long as we talk about the actual things and not their symbols which are obviously in a completely different domain.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don't think you understand Taoism at all but I am too lazy to pull quotes. >SYMBOLS
So? They're not arbitrary.
Also: >man and woman aren't real opposites
Neither are light and dark or hot and cold in a physical sense. Nevertheless, I suspect that your ideological agreement has less to do with Taoism and more likely the fact that you are some flavor of troony or gay who is afraid of the reality of sex/gender.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Black and white are opposites perceptually, but there is nothing inherent in them insofar as they are pure perceptions that causes their association. Black is associated with yin because it is perceived when there is no light. But black also exists as a pure thing that does not necessarily have to be associated with the absence of light. That they are not real opposites according to their physical causes is irrelevant. But physical men and women obviously aren’t real opposites because they are too messy and only exist by evolutionary accident. I guess if you think you can abstract a pure platonic idea of man vs woman then maybe you could say those ideas are opposite. But that just introduced more problems >Nevertheless, I suspect that your ideological agreement has less to do with Taoism and more likely the fact that you are some flavor of troony or gay who is afraid of the reality of sex/gender. >I don't think you understand Taoism
Is the gay, illiterate, leftist, moronic anon who has only read the dao de jing and doesn’t understand taoism at all in the room with you right now? are you off your medication again anon?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Is the gay, illiterate, leftist, moronic anon who has only read the dao de jing and doesn’t understand taoism at all in the room with you right now? are you off your medication again anon?
Yup. He's in the chatroom/board with me. I'm replying to him right now.
9 months ago
Anonymous
symbols are only theater made up by and for women and homosexuals
9 months ago
Anonymous
Black and white are opposites perceptually, but there is nothing inherent in them insofar as they are pure perceptions that causes their association. Black is associated with yin because it is perceived when there is no light. But black also exists as a pure thing that does not necessarily have to be associated with the absence of light. That they are not real opposites according to their physical causes is irrelevant. But physical men and women obviously aren’t real opposites because they are too messy and only exist by evolutionary accident. I guess if you think you can abstract a pure platonic idea of man vs woman then maybe you could say those ideas are opposite. But that just introduced more problems >Nevertheless, I suspect that your ideological agreement has less to do with Taoism and more likely the fact that you are some flavor of troony or gay who is afraid of the reality of sex/gender. >I don't think you understand Taoism
Is the gay, illiterate, leftist, moronic anon who has only read the dao de jing and doesn’t understand taoism at all in the room with you right now? are you off your medication again anon?
You both made interesting points, sad to see the argument degenerate this far.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Ya. I was one the dude arguing for correspondences being determined by affinities which are not arbitrary altho I suppose in a purely linguistic sense you could switch signifiers so to speak without fidelity loss. Nevertheless, I think opposites whether in mind or reality are misunderstood by the anon who claims that male and female are not true opposites -- as Hegel or Badiou or Zizek says, the nature of the dialectic is a radical non-equivalence between thesis and antithesis. It is not the two that composes one harmony but the disharmonious two within every harmony of oneness. Anyway, I'm not a daoist so I have no dog in fight. I was just confused by his position because I find it unusual from how I understand daoism. I am sorry for the ad hominem starting
9 months ago
Anonymous
No worries. >Nevertheless, I think opposites whether in mind or reality are misunderstood by the anon who claims that male and female are not true opposites
On this point, I felt that you were both correct, especially given that Daoism embraces both dualism and change, so even if "masculinity" and "femininity" are nebulous and not polar opposites in its manifestation among humans, they're still symbols or "good examples" of the dualist principle at work (which is also always in flux, e.g. old yin, old yang).
I think the problem is that there's so much stupidity in culture today that people are afraid of finding reasons to justify it writ large. So they'll be afraid to read something like Evola's Metaphysics of Sex because of that passage that there's masculinity and femininity in everyone (brutally butchered in paraphrasing).
First of all there are no “real taoists.” There were ancient chinese shamans who concentrated their qi and jing. Then there was a philosophical school that arose as a reaction by people influenced by these esoteric practices against confucianism. Then there were several syncretic schools combining taoism, buddhism, and confucianism. “Taoist” alchemy like the secret of the golden flower is actually influenced by buddhism and would be unrecognizable to early taoists. So basically whatever alchemical book you pick to practice will all be different and so none will be “real” taoism. A lot of taoists emphasized finding a teacher or a mythical real person to give you the tao. A lot of taoist monasteries is basically sitting around drinking tea and writing poetry. If you want to do what a “real” taoist would do you would probably have to travel back in time to mountains of china or find some obscure chinese monastery. But you can practice the tao in literally anything. Zhuangzi takes fishermen and chefs as examples of people practicing the tao. whatever, your question is pointless
Real taoists are alchemists who spend all their lives cultivating and balancing the various life energies in order to achieve transcendent immortality. Modern "daoists" might tell you these are metaphorical models (like how western alchemy is treated as metaphorical model of the psychic sphere) but they are incorrect in this assertion and their denial of the supernatural. Admittedly, this is partly the fault of the chinese who traditionally didn't differentiate between the natural and the supernatural in the same explicit way that we do
9 months ago
Sir Duncans Crumbs (His Grace)
Taoism is for very advanced people, it will mean nothing to you until you've gotten ... uh ... very advanced. Quanzhen, Dragon Gate, White Cloud, Inner Alchemy, Immortality. These things will not be very interesting to a peon whose intellectual highpoint is sucking up the vomit of germans from the 1800's and making like it's delicious.
Yes, you're quite right about everything you said.
I'd add that "alchemy" is not even their word; that the chinese grasp of medicine was always far ahead of the arab-copying western europeans, and that in the Quanzhen sense "inner alchemy to achieve immortality" is closest translated to nutrition and diet, or perhaps drugs, to tune the body and mind into a superior and optimal state.
To us, we have fricked up hand-me down version of all this where we read about Ancient Chinese Emperors striving to achieve immortality and we don't at all get that their efforts were more about developing themselves intellectually than anything else; which they considered (and which is very interesting to consider) to 'be' immortality in the Mandate of Heaven "philosophy" of the Emperors in that "anything is possible" (and nutritionally also comparatively longer life and less atrophy of the body over time) when you arrive there.
It goes without saying that nothing at all in western european literature or concept in culture comes even close to any of this... except.. maybe ancient roman books we know existed (on diet, etc.) but were lost or destroyed by mobs of urban Europeans practicing simple judaism.
>Taoism
>Logic
This thread was over before it even began
Why would you say there's no logic? I like Taoism, but I'm exploring blindspots and if there's anything better
Earth's land area is finite, therefore food is finite.
If food (and other resources) are finite, then humans cannot eternally coexist in abundance.
Humans must compete for resources.
You are unable to simply "live in harmony with the universe maaan" due to the need to compete for resources to actually live.
The dao doesn’t say violence can be eliminated. It says that the best way to achieve things is not through violence.
The great principle of Heaven and earth is to treat public property as such and private property as such. Knowing this principle, which of us is a thief, and at the same time which of us is not a thief?'
>this is your brain on capitalist mindrape
>capitalism is when you acknowledge finity applies to some things
The earth is an open system, not closed. The sun ejaculates more energy upon us than we can use. It is excess not scarcity which rules us. Cf. Bataille
>finite thing equals we must compete for thing
Yeah, capitalist mindrape. Are you going to give us the 'land of barter' cope?
>you must eat food to survive
>yeah, okay FRIEDMAN
Drain the sea, you still have finite land. Use it all for food, end up stacking aeroponics or whatever upon it. Eventually you run out of enough water to either drink or use on food production. Man must compete for what's left or accept death.
Cool quotes bro. The sun alone doesn't grow food. Hang on, maybe you're on to something, let me just pull up the Frenchman:
>Now in the corner of a hallway there was a saucer of milk for the cat. "Milk is for the pussy, isn't it?" said Simone. "Do you dare me to sit in the saucer?"
You're right. I understand now.
>competition means that we cannot question irrational imbalances in wealth
Tard
Question it all you want, Socrates.
But abstaining from the competition just means forfeiting and losing.
You will never escape the Demiurge's game no matter how much book cope you consoome.
nta
The supposed scarcity of food is such a moronic take in apology for capitalism. There is such an abundance of food that we actually have to burn tons of it to justify the unnatural state of profit-driven economies.
Collaboration is closer to human nature than competition. Awaken from your American brainwashing.
Where at all did you extrapolate that from what I wrote?
land area may be finite (you can still reclaim land like the dutch and japanese, so not really) but food is hardly finite in the same way. stop being so autistic
Simply don’t reproduce.there. Problem solved.
Feel free to cuck yourself like that if you want. Perfectly valid option.
Personally, I'll be fricking and killing til the cows come home.
Read Confuscious. I would not say that he refutes Taoism but consider how his philosophy differs from Taoism and then consider why Confuscian thought dominated the Far East to a greater degree than Taoism.
*Confucius
You may just call him Hon. Kong John if you can't spell it.
It’s actually taoism that refutes confucius, but it doesn’t matter because they were combined in neoconfucianism anyway.
>and then consider why Confuscian thought dominated the Far East to a greater degree than Taoism.
oh yeah confuscian thought sure dominated, hehe
confricksian
flowing stream,
mind fricked,
a dam has been made
the dao de jing
sure, buddhism mogs Taoism and any chink think
Cuckhism is bottom tier
t. trapped in samsara and seething about it
does that come with naan bread?
a jeet meme religion for roasties lmao
not cool man,buddhabros and taobros are two faces of the same coin
Zen Buddhism was invented because buddhists couldn't refute the daoism so they had to make an entire new religion that's just daoism with Buddha plastered over it.
What is "the logic" of Taoism?
I've always seen Taoism as including experiential approach, which is hierarchically higher than the so-called logical approach. It's about inner work, not about presenting an argument.
In other words, if you somehow make a case for Taoism being wrong, Taoists likely won't care.
I'm personally inclined toward Taoism but I think that in the end even the label and concepts of Taoism need to be dropped. Before that, they can be used provisionally as a tool.
>What is "the logic" of Taoism
2nd chapter of Zhuangzi. Interchangeability of opposites.
The logic that can be logic'd is not the eternal logic :^)
The sneed that can be fed is not the eternal sneed
The apparent dichotomy of Feed and Seed is an merely an emanation of the Primordial Chuck.
I sit in my room all day and do nothing. Am I a sage?
quite possibly
Pretty much all Aristotelian and Modern Logic "refutes" Taoism insofar as it dogmatized LEM and PNC which the yin yang seems to imply is some sort of dialectical or dialetheist logic. But the taoist can claim that their logic refutes the other's as well. Like most issues in philosophy, it comes down to intuitions
Daoism doesnt necessarily say yin is yang ina logical sense. It would say that it is not possible to distinguish pure yin from pure yang.
For example, take white and black. In essence white is not black. Yet they are totally interchangeable. When one culture imagines nothingness they may imagine white, whereas another may imagine black. I could have white represent yin and black represent yang if I wanted. Although they are opposites, only by convention do they achieve their speakable differences.
That's linguistic structuralism. Also what of the yin in yang and vice versa?
> That's linguistic structuralism
Ok, that’s probably not accurate because you can’t project shit like that onto ancient texts so anachronistically, but I have no idea what that is
> what of the yin in yang
In neoconfucian cosmology yin and yang are combined in various ways to produce the five phases. That is not specifically a daoist thing
>anachronistic
You're the one reducing metaphysical concepts to linguistic constructs.
>I don't understand
Read more, homosexual
>combinations of opposites
Opposites cannot combine according to LEM / PNC
>inb4 b-b-but i dun wanna read more, daoism axshually encourages my anti intellectualism pseuding ! (protip: it doesn't)
>2023
>Lenin Engels Marx / Misc Nikita Castro
Law of Excluded Middle and Principle of Non-Contradiction
> Opposites cannot combine according to LEM / PNC
So every color between white and black contradicts the LEM / PNC?
> Read more, homosexual
Reading does not mean specifically reading your weird language shit
> You're the one reducing metaphysical concepts to linguistic constructs.
Except I never did. That was how you interpreted my post.
Why the afression?
>reading does not mean blah blah blah
Bro. Just admit yr a poser who has only read DDJ and leave the convo for the pros
>>yr post
>speakable difference
Yin yang / dao / taiji is metaphysical not linguistic
So because I used the word speakable you think my whole post was about language? By speakable I meant that there are no differences between pure yin and pure yang that you can include in a definite proposition or predication, which is the same as saying they are indistinguishable.
>Just admit yr a poser who has only read DDJ and leave the convo for the pros
What we are currently talking about isn’t even in the ddj. You keep obsessing over yin and yang despite that coming from neoconfucianism and chinese medicine. The unity of opposites as I am talking about it is in zhuangzi but not the dao de jing, in the dao de jing it is presented as merely an alternation between the opposites in time which because of their necessity cannot be contravened through effort, implying the detachment of the sage. Which is why “therefore the sage does not try” comes after “hard follows soft” etc.
Pure yin and pure yang beget one another but are not identical. One might say that difference as first principle creates identity even.
I think it is less A = - A
And moreso A -> -A & -A -> A
I also think yin and yang are both predicated... elextive affinites if ya will de signature rerum n whatnot
Suppose we switch black n white.
Do we also switch man and woman? Heaven and earth?
Maximum cope.
Not an argument
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
> The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’
Incorrect.
Is this not standard Hegelianism? That is, a != a because differentiation is implied in formula's structure?
Marxists are just weaksauce Hegelians anyway. Idea>materia
I never said they were identical. Yes, black and white are not identical. The point is they are interchangeable in terms of the actual effects that they have.
Also
>do we also switch man and woman
No because they are not perfect metaphysical opposites.
Doesn't Daoism claim so however? If we are leaving texts behind might as well say black n white are not pure opposites either. N if we switched b n w on yi n yang what would go for other opposites? Would they stay same cause arbitrary or switch too? You answered not
No. In the sayings of ancestor Lü he states that when the ancients said “cleave to the feminine” they were actually “referring to something else.” Male and female are used as signs of a dual that is real, not literally man and woman.
>one cherrypicked quote that misunderstand entire argument in first place
You are ignant, kid. Buh bye
The answer is all opposites are interchangeable. You accused me of leaving texts behind so that is why I “cherry picked” a quote to show that daoism does not in fact claim what you said. I didn’t say that no opposites would “switch” I said that all opposites are interchangeable, only men and women dont get switched because they aren’t really opposites.
If yin was light and white instead of dark and black would yin still be woman? Would it still be wet? Or would it be dry? I'm asking about the associations between yin and yin and yang and yang elements not the provisional nature of the categories of elements themselves which sure may be nominalist, however, daoism in my readings is quite essentializing about such dualisms even if ultimately nondual.
Would it make sense to call light the mother of all forms? Darkness the father?
If you answer yes then I think you are a cultural relativist and not a true daoist
Yin is not dark or a woman. Those are just SYMBOLS. I already explained that. Cultural relativism has nothing to do with this as long as we talk about the actual things and not their symbols which are obviously in a completely different domain.
I don't think you understand Taoism at all but I am too lazy to pull quotes.
>SYMBOLS
So? They're not arbitrary.
Also:
>man and woman aren't real opposites
Neither are light and dark or hot and cold in a physical sense. Nevertheless, I suspect that your ideological agreement has less to do with Taoism and more likely the fact that you are some flavor of troony or gay who is afraid of the reality of sex/gender.
Black and white are opposites perceptually, but there is nothing inherent in them insofar as they are pure perceptions that causes their association. Black is associated with yin because it is perceived when there is no light. But black also exists as a pure thing that does not necessarily have to be associated with the absence of light. That they are not real opposites according to their physical causes is irrelevant. But physical men and women obviously aren’t real opposites because they are too messy and only exist by evolutionary accident. I guess if you think you can abstract a pure platonic idea of man vs woman then maybe you could say those ideas are opposite. But that just introduced more problems
>Nevertheless, I suspect that your ideological agreement has less to do with Taoism and more likely the fact that you are some flavor of troony or gay who is afraid of the reality of sex/gender.
>I don't think you understand Taoism
Is the gay, illiterate, leftist, moronic anon who has only read the dao de jing and doesn’t understand taoism at all in the room with you right now? are you off your medication again anon?
>Is the gay, illiterate, leftist, moronic anon who has only read the dao de jing and doesn’t understand taoism at all in the room with you right now? are you off your medication again anon?
Yup. He's in the chatroom/board with me. I'm replying to him right now.
symbols are only theater made up by and for women and homosexuals
You both made interesting points, sad to see the argument degenerate this far.
Ya. I was one the dude arguing for correspondences being determined by affinities which are not arbitrary altho I suppose in a purely linguistic sense you could switch signifiers so to speak without fidelity loss. Nevertheless, I think opposites whether in mind or reality are misunderstood by the anon who claims that male and female are not true opposites -- as Hegel or Badiou or Zizek says, the nature of the dialectic is a radical non-equivalence between thesis and antithesis. It is not the two that composes one harmony but the disharmonious two within every harmony of oneness. Anyway, I'm not a daoist so I have no dog in fight. I was just confused by his position because I find it unusual from how I understand daoism. I am sorry for the ad hominem starting
No worries.
>Nevertheless, I think opposites whether in mind or reality are misunderstood by the anon who claims that male and female are not true opposites
On this point, I felt that you were both correct, especially given that Daoism embraces both dualism and change, so even if "masculinity" and "femininity" are nebulous and not polar opposites in its manifestation among humans, they're still symbols or "good examples" of the dualist principle at work (which is also always in flux, e.g. old yin, old yang).
I think the problem is that there's so much stupidity in culture today that people are afraid of finding reasons to justify it writ large. So they'll be afraid to read something like Evola's Metaphysics of Sex because of that passage that there's masculinity and femininity in everyone (brutally butchered in paraphrasing).
Stick to basic white b***h interpretations of yoga. Grifted homosexuals actually believe the dumb shit asian coomers feed them lmao
what a midwit board
Ok groomer
>ifunny
Good chart?
Sickness, poverty, injustice, pain, boredom, society etc.
How do you actually understand the Tao? I don't understand
Not understanding the tao as hard as you can will lead to understanding the tao
What practices do real taoists do? Chan Buddhism is adulterated, I mean, real taoists. How do they realize TAO?
First of all there are no “real taoists.” There were ancient chinese shamans who concentrated their qi and jing. Then there was a philosophical school that arose as a reaction by people influenced by these esoteric practices against confucianism. Then there were several syncretic schools combining taoism, buddhism, and confucianism. “Taoist” alchemy like the secret of the golden flower is actually influenced by buddhism and would be unrecognizable to early taoists. So basically whatever alchemical book you pick to practice will all be different and so none will be “real” taoism. A lot of taoists emphasized finding a teacher or a mythical real person to give you the tao. A lot of taoist monasteries is basically sitting around drinking tea and writing poetry. If you want to do what a “real” taoist would do you would probably have to travel back in time to mountains of china or find some obscure chinese monastery. But you can practice the tao in literally anything. Zhuangzi takes fishermen and chefs as examples of people practicing the tao. whatever, your question is pointless
Real taoists are alchemists who spend all their lives cultivating and balancing the various life energies in order to achieve transcendent immortality. Modern "daoists" might tell you these are metaphorical models (like how western alchemy is treated as metaphorical model of the psychic sphere) but they are incorrect in this assertion and their denial of the supernatural. Admittedly, this is partly the fault of the chinese who traditionally didn't differentiate between the natural and the supernatural in the same explicit way that we do
Taoism is for very advanced people, it will mean nothing to you until you've gotten ... uh ... very advanced. Quanzhen, Dragon Gate, White Cloud, Inner Alchemy, Immortality. These things will not be very interesting to a peon whose intellectual highpoint is sucking up the vomit of germans from the 1800's and making like it's delicious.
Yes, you're quite right about everything you said.
I'd add that "alchemy" is not even their word; that the chinese grasp of medicine was always far ahead of the arab-copying western europeans, and that in the Quanzhen sense "inner alchemy to achieve immortality" is closest translated to nutrition and diet, or perhaps drugs, to tune the body and mind into a superior and optimal state.
To us, we have fricked up hand-me down version of all this where we read about Ancient Chinese Emperors striving to achieve immortality and we don't at all get that their efforts were more about developing themselves intellectually than anything else; which they considered (and which is very interesting to consider) to 'be' immortality in the Mandate of Heaven "philosophy" of the Emperors in that "anything is possible" (and nutritionally also comparatively longer life and less atrophy of the body over time) when you arrive there.
It goes without saying that nothing at all in western european literature or concept in culture comes even close to any of this... except.. maybe ancient roman books we know existed (on diet, etc.) but were lost or destroyed by mobs of urban Europeans practicing simple judaism.
>delicious