The taoist trap

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Here lies the trap of the tao, an illustration of observational distance:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I assert that the nature of human existence puts you in this trap, and that there are only two ways out (assuming you're alive, as this trap doesn't exist to a dead man I presume).

    Escape routes:

    1) FAITH.

    2) REJECTION. (which could be shown to be "faith" actually, but that's for later)

    Conclusions to be drawn from this relationship:

    Agnosticism is a condition, not a choice. You can bullshit yourself as if it isn't, even to some gain... but regardless, agnosticism is simply a limitation of humanity. The most religious individual who "rejects" agnosticism is simply in denial of the limitation of his authority.

    Other stuff that I can't think of because I lost my train of thought.

    Discuss.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    That man limits himself is certainly true.

    That man is limited by reality...I think can be said to be true as well.

    Whether man can unlimit himself by any power of thought or action is another matter.

    Is the unlimiting of oneself not he goal of Buddhism? possibly Hinduism.....I'm not so sure about Taoism?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    The goal of buddhism is to crush the ego, thereby purportedly freeing the mind. Nirvana is apparently a state of null ego.

    It's not the path for me.

    I don't know if there is a "goal" of taoism.

    I don't care really.

    I an accidental taoist, which is the most pure kind as far as I can tell.

    Regardless, the intention of this thread isn't to do with an ism at all. "the tao" is just an excellent concept to communicate a relationship of man with his environment.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Well try this then;

    That man limits himself is certainly true.

    That man is limited by reality...I think can be said to be true as well.

    Whether man can unlimit himself by any power of thought or action is another matter.
     
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Regardless of a man's limitations, he is still bound by the trap. Let us say his thought and action expand to encompass the known universe.

    Is that not then still, part of his mind? Can he objectively state that his actions have encompassed more than what his mind tells him they have via his perception?

    Still trapped.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Do you mean that we are trapped because we can not contact reality except through the indirect means of the senses?
     
  10. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    If "reality" and "the tao" are the same, then mostly yeah.

    Ultimately, what is trapped is authority.

    "we are trapped" is basically in reference to the accuracy of the diagram, simultaneously illustrating that you can't be "not you", as your mind is the limit of you, no matter how "far reaching" it may be, it's still just you.. and bounded forever by your stimulous in terms of your interaction with the tao. it's a consequence of inviduality I suppose.
     
  11. Markus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Hey guys i want to ask u a few questions.

    I am a translation majoring student from Hong Kongand i am very interested in philosophy.
    Actually in the process of translation, much of Taoism has lost due to cultural and language differences, so i want to ask do u really understand what taoism says? (I am not too understand in fact) Do u feel confused about the translation?

    I ask these questions becoz from the above discussion, the taoism u guys talk about is not the one i am familiar with.
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    This thread isn't about taosim, as I stated above. I'm just using "the tao" as part of an illustration. I called it "the taoist trap" because it sounded cool and in my diagram, it's the tao that has one trapped - so I'm not really using it in its typical context.
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Hey. This is about Taoism right?
    Kidding.

    Actually, it's more about solipsism, right?
    Or rather, solipsism would be a strong form of your diagram.

    Basically, yeah. We experience the world through the filter of our perceptions. The mechanisms of our various sense organs shape the world which we perceive. And. Not only this, but the sensory cortexes of our brain do a lot of post-sensing processing that amplify this, diminish that. Noise reduction and stimulus highlighting.

    Language is, of course, a prime example of this altering of 'reality'.

    That brings us back to days of yore when I quoted this bit of fascinating text from The Naked Neuron:
    ...when A. F. Chamberlain visited the Kootenai and Mohawk Indians during the late 1800's, he noted that they even heard animal and bird sounds differently from him. For example, when listening to some owls hooting, he noted that to him it sounded like "tu-whit-tu-whit-tu-whit," whereas the Indians heard "Katskakitl." However once he became accustomed to their language and began to use it, he soon developed the ability to hear sounds differently... When listening to a whippoorwill, he noted... it was saying "kwa-kor-yeuh.​
    As our brains develop, our sensory cortexes are trained to pay attention to specific key stimuli. Not only in auditory but also in visual stimuli. It's a proven fact that we pay attention to stimuli far better in the lower half of our visual field than the upper. Also, we have a tendency to spot certain types of movement as opposed to others. It is this tendency which certain animals such as the chameleon and walking stick use to disguise their movements. We gravitate towards 'life-like" movements as opposed to natural movements of sticks and leaves because of wind gusts.

    The mind is a finely tuned perception organ.

    And, this goes to show that your diagram is far too simplistic. Because it shows the 'mind' being trapped by the senses, but the mind is not a single thing. There are a variety of filtering levels between the senses and our conscious perception of the finished output. I suppose you could simply double up the sensory levels, showing one for the sense organs themselves, and one for the sensory cortexes. But, there are also the associative cortexes which combine the output of the sensory cortexes with preprogrammed associative factors. And, then, we're not done yet. The frontal cortex has the opportunity to play with the end product of the associative processes and to direct attention towards this and that or away from this and that and then sends it back through the whole process for another run-through. This occurs several times and by the time we become consciously aware of anything, it might be very far removed from what one might call objective reality.


    Another thing to consider would be the delay that occurs in all this processing. There is a half-second delay from sensory stimulus to conscious awareness. But, we don't live in a world that seems to be a half-second out of synch. How is this possible? Because a good portion of these interpretive mechanisms are designed to predict what the world is like 'now' based on what it was like a half-second ago. This is at the root of a large number of optical illusions. And shows us just how squirrely is the concept of 'reality'.


    So.
    Exactly what is it that one is having 'faith' about?
    I suspect that you're on a completely different topic than I've just expounded upon. This is, of course, a carryover from a religious thread, and you've mentioned agnosticism. So, I doubt if you had in mind a discussion on the various brain functions which serve to create our reality.

    But there you go.
    I read your post and filter it through my perceptions and perceptual and associative biases. And my 'mind' augments those aspects which interest me and diminish those aspects which don't.
    A natural selection of stimuli.
    And... with me... religion loses, every time.


    And. As to this:
    The thread may not be about Taoism, but the cultural and language differences are a prime example of the topic. Language is one of the simplest means of showing this perceptual filtering as it is so precise and can thus show very precise alterations in perceptual acuity and bias.

    I've always been fascinated by those UN translators that have basically trained the lobes of their brain to each specialize in a language. They tend to have a preferred ear for translating which means that they have a preferred lobe for translating and thus one lobe speaks(hears) one language while the other simultaneously translates.
    Amazing stuff.
    A touch off topic though... Because I've never read on any research being done as to the effects of this unusual form of brain specialization.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Wholly and utterly. I don't appreciate your off-topic remarks that follow.

    Epistemology I'd say. Solipsism to me is somewhat irrelevant. The diagram illustrates a perspective's relationship to its environment.

    Yup. The doodad above is a block diagram, you're talking about the related schematics for individual sections.

    The MIND in my lexicon, is not an organ. Your'e talking about the brain. IMO, the mind consists of the brain + it's abstract component.


    For what? It's just enough to illustrate the trap I think. That was the only intention for it.

    But all the things it is are confined by its interface, by necessity.

    While I agree, it's all based on the presumption that nothing is messing with your perception. I make the same presumption, but note that it's a leap of faith - though it's the shortest leap possible.

    Indeed.

    That what stimulates your perception is reflective of more than itself.

    Contemplate that Lewis Carol doodad. It illustrates that reason is granted. It is in this that you have faith (as do I). You can pose valid arguments all day long but if I'm ill equiped or steeped in opposing presumption, I'll not grant you what you percieve as your due. Faith in your premise is what grants you the ability to build upon it. I mean for instance, if you didn't accept that A=A, you couldn't exactly use logic to proceed right? You could I guess, as selectively and widly as you see fit. You don't though... because your mind, as a result of your stimulous and it's internal processing stuff tells you that A does indeed = A.

    It's my opinion that when you "why?" until you can't take it anymore, you have little recourse other than "because I believe it to be so". If you look at the trap above, you'll see why. It's because since you aren't anything but yourself, you can't say with certainty what other things are... except in terms of yourself. Well, actually you can so long as you're willing to presume something like "my senses are tied directly to reality".. which certainly seems to be the case, but you can't say with certainty without an element of presumption. So we presume.

    No it's valid per the topic. Agnosticism is epistemological. Obviously there are repurcussions regarding religious crap, but that wasn't really the intention of the thread. I'm curious as to the utility of the model. I'm curious if it covers the bases I think it does. To me, it naturally illustrates one's epistemological relationship with their environment.

    Indeed. I've been thinking about that in particular of late. I was thinking of a thread about it actually. I've been toying with what we're all doing here, where/why our interests are what they are. I had the perfect phrasing as I fell asleep one night, but forgot. It's somethign like "covering your ass", as it seems to me what we're doing is continually testing our survival models (as we percieve them) which are a big matrix type thing of concepts we utilize to comprehend our place in stuff. I post a thread like this to get feedback.. to see if the model I've created for reality as I see it is strong enough to withstand criticism, etc. Which is all in a sense, covering your conceptual ass. Bah, anyway.

    Exactly.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2005
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The Taoist approach to the problem is this: While it is true that the mind is the interpreter of reality, so we can only experience reality secondhand, the mind also places a second filter on our perceptions, and that is the realm of thought known as the ego. So, wes, there should be another circle around the sensory circle that symbolizes the tendency to further filter our sensory perceptions into the symbolic meanings that culture teaches. This means that most people experience reality, if there is such a thing, thirdhand. If the practice of Taoism means anything, it is rediscovering how to experience the universe merely secondhand.
     
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    The diagram adequately models my point. You can make your own and put as many circles in it as you like. More circles do nothing to illustration my intended meaning. The "symbolic meanings that culture teaches" are still subject to the relationship above. They are still filtered through stimulous into mind.

    It's my opinion that taosm isn't something practiced at all.

    Regardless, contrary to what I told Invert, this thread isn't about taoism. Perhaps it was presumptuous of me to assume people would understand that by actually reading what was written.
     
  17. antifreeze defrosting agent Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    494
    "It's because since you aren't anything but yourself, you can't say with certainty what other things are... except in terms of yourself. Well, actually you can so long as you're willing to presume something like "my senses are tied directly to reality".. which certainly seems to be the case, but you can't say with certainty without an element of presumption. So we presume."

    is it really a presumption? afterall, when i type these keys, this "s" for example, an "s" appears on the monitor. i cannot tell you that my keyboard is white or the text black or the monitor square-ish, these are just words, yet you are reading this, and you may even respond. so, therefore, i know 1) that i can interact with my environment and that such interaction yields the expected reaction and 2) that the universe contains not only my "mind" but the "minds" of others as well [though this does border on the realm of presumption]. and on the whole, this sounds like the "What is real" thread. :bugeye:
     
  18. Markus Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    I think i can get what you mean by now.

    As how we understand the universe is limited by filters(it's no doubt), Taoism in fact did suggest some so called solutions though u only use Tao as a lexicon but not really talking about Taoist's ideas

    1. An very abstract way. I dont really know how it works. It suggests we to maintain the superiority of our mind. Something similar to what Yoda, the Jedi master of Star Wars says, to feel the force. You have to feel it. It's not so logical but it's a different way of thinking anyway. Taoism even suggests that once you have a pure mind, u can communicate with everything in the world because you, the trees, the fish, or else are ONE.

    2. Let it be. If we are really limited, it's impossible to understand the world(or reality) which is beyond our ability. So, let it be. IMO, i do agree with this idea, but I also suggest that we should try to figure out the universe(i dont quite like to use the word reality).

    Actually i hv the same feeling that the topic is very similar with those what's real topics.
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I condone faith in reason. All else follows.
     
  20. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    The assumption seems to be though, that tao is not already present in the mind.

    If tao pervades everything, would it not also inherently pervade the mind.

    In other words, is the mind part of the energy of all that exists, or is it outside of the energy of all that exists and is only the perceiver of all that exists.

    Is the mind seperate from and observing tao or is it tao to begin with.
     
  21. antifreeze defrosting agent Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    494
    it is said that the tao is everything, so i would guess we are a part of the tao as well. from what i understand, it is as though we hear it, but do not listen to what it has to say, so to speak. :bugeye:
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    IMO, perception separates one from the tao. Though you are a part of it, the act of abstraction separates the tao from the contents of mind. The correlation between the two can only be established through faith of some form... e.g., you believe that your stimulous is earnestly reflective of the contents of the tao.
     
  23. SkippingStones splunk! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    231
    I wonder how the way people see the relationship between reality and perceptions is different for the sensory-impaired. Most of us are intensely visual people and our whole concept of space is affected by that. I wonder how it is for someone blind from birth.

    What happens to "reality" for someone with total sensory deprivation, when the mind is all that's left.
     

Share This Page