From this point forward I can no longer use simple concepts or elementary logic. And this might be the point on which we diverge. When I say “left-brain†I am trying to communicate that there are different kinds of understanding (consciousness or brain functioning). Logic and rationalization are only one type of understanding. If you use only logic and rational thinking then you are assuming that life is logical and rational. I strongly feel that life is illogical and irrational. Therefore, I cannot find a logical and rational formula that holds up against life. Is it rational that you can live a totally healthy and happy childhood, only to get Cancer at the age of 9, and then the ensuing 5 years of unbearable torture and unto a premature death? To me this is irrational and illogical. Therefore I only utilize logical thinking when it benefits the understanding of the subject of inquiry. There are other types of thinking that should be strengthened and harnessed. One is creative thinking and the more applicable to Taoism is simply put (but not easily defined) -- intuition. Intuition should not be confused with psychic premonition. Intuition is an impression, a sensation experienced outside of logic at a given moment during a given instance that guides you on the most appropriate path (and only when logic is rendered inefficient). Intuition is not something that I can simply define for you and then you magically understand. Intuitive thinking is something that can only be experienced on an individual basis. Likewise Taoism does not simply throw down some words and say, “just believe meâ€, it sets up a system for personal discovery. Unfortunately, an understanding of this system requires hard work and desire on your part. If you do not want to understand this system – then you won’t, and it goes against the principles of Taoism to convert you.
White is not the mirror image of black, nor are electrons the mirror image of positrons, nor masculine qualities the mirror image of feminine qualities. I do not see how unreason mirrors reason; it is merely the negation of it.
A mirror image but not as an exact duplication but more as an opposite reflection providing the inversion of its charged potential and therefore paralleling its function in nature. Two extremes of a given duality are just that – extremes. They are equally charged, equally radical, and equally significant in the scheme of the equation, and therefore they are reflections (or “projections of one’s oppositeâ€) of each other. Again this is something that must be understood innately.
That said, your argument is not against rationalism, but against empiricism. The only complaint I have is your "left-brain/right-brain/half-brain" thing; understanding which parts of the brain control which behaviours and thoughts is an entirely scientific undertaking. Someone who sees the inherent weaknesses of science would avoid using this empirical vernacular entirely, and instead use philosophic or spiritual terms.
Myself, I do not value science one whit. Reading their latest theories is entertainment; nothing more.
I simply misjudged you, I thought that you would more easily respond by references to brain function, than you would by describing varying degrees of consciousness. Therefore the “left-brain right-brain thing†was my attempt to communicate on common ground in an understandable vernacular. Once again I said this to accentuate that there are other types of thinking, other capabilities of the mind than just what can be communicated through formulas, logic, and even the written word. Not everything in life has to be one-way. You can acknowledge, respect, and utilize science, yet realize its limitations and flaws. I feel that the best approach to dealing with duality and the whole spectrum of what life offers is by utilizing whatever path is most effective for that given circumstance. Therefore, just as there is a time for Tsunamis and a time for passionate intercourse with someone you are deeply in love with, Likewise there is also a time for violence and a time to be passive, there is a time to be rational and a time to use intuition, there is a time for spirituality and a time for empiricism, and if you limit yourself on what you accept or utilize, you are ignoring half of existence, and limiting your efficiency to cope with the entire spectrum. Think of it as an applied philosophy. When I feel a given circumstance would be best suited by the philosophy of a rationalist, I utilize that way of thinking and when I feel a specific circumstance requires transcendental consciousness, or even fantastical thinking, I utilize these capabilities. The practical goal of Taoism is to learn as much as you possibly can and never cease learning and adapting. A Taoist respects a Christian equally to an Atheist and acknowledges the importance of both roles in society and nature, and when a Taoist realizes that the Christian way of thinking is more suitable to a given instance she utilizes that way of thinking. A Taoist denies nothing that exists (or doesn’t exist). That does not mean that “anything goesâ€, or to “do nothingâ€. You need an opinion, you need to make choices, and most importantly you need to complete. You feel your path and the way which you are drawn and utilize this path to its utmost potential. Because life is ever-changing the most effective way to live is to be flexible or capable of change. It is not a contradiction to be capable of both love and hate; likewise it is not a contradiction to be capable of rationalization and spiritual understanding.
I think you missed the point of the writing you offered me. He actually said that matter doesn't exist. In fact, if you followed what he was saying, not only does matter not exist, you could conclude that antimatter doesn't really exist either.
Classic of Purity:
Those who have the power to transcend their desires, looking within and contemplating mind, realizes that in mind, mind is not; looking without contemplating form, they realize that in form, form is not; looking at things still more remote and contemplating matter, they realize that in matter, matter is not.
Here he is contemplating the eternal way. This is not a famous Taoist text and Ko Hsuan is not as integral a figure as Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu, but I quoted this text because it is the rare occurrence when a Taoist tries define the eternal way. It is not saying that matter and antimatter don’t exist; it is an attempt to contemplate beyond matter and antimatter and therefore an attempt to contemplate the greater unknown (or God). This is the stage a Taoist enters when they have traveled all that they wish to travel, experienced all that they wish to experience, and accomplished all that they wish to accomplish – in other words when they are ready to move on. If you want to experience something that exists beyond or outside of matter and antimatter then you have to transcend your desires, you have to think outside the mind of duality. This is not a rational concept so it can’t be explained using that type of thinking and therefore you probably have no desire to understand it. When you’ve spent 10 years of your life practicing the difficult art of meditation (a type of meditation where you don’t have one thought for upwards of hours on end) and you try to explain to someone the feeling you get when you transcend consciousness, when you enter a realm beyond thinking, you realize that this is something that can’t be communicated to someone without personal experience. Similarly, a heart surgeon cannot communicate to a telemarketer the sensation of performing a flawless surgery and saving someone’s life, but that does not mean that the sensation did not occur. The sensation of the void, of formlessness, or emptiness is a sensation that must be experienced outside of forms, outside of matter, and outside of the rational mind. The example of an empty room or a cup, or a bellows, is just a vague attempt to describe how something is useful by its emptiness. The best example is the bellows. A bellows utilizes its emptiness by constantly moving and churning its empty space, and therefore pushing substance (air) through it. Similarly the Tao is constantly moving and churning its emptiness (eternal) to push out substance (matter, antimatter, and all the children of duality). The bellows requires energy (output from the person using the bellows) to utilize emptiness (the space that the bellows forms around) to churn substance (the air that the bellows pushes out). But the bellows is only useful because of its emptiness.
Think carefully about this implications of this. Something unmagical exists, therefore something magical exists. Something dead exists, therefore something alive exists. Something not-unicorn-like exists, therefore something unicorn-like exists. Something real exists, therefore something unreal exists... etc ad nauseum.
A famous Taoist quote is “know magic, shun magicâ€. It means that you should know all things, but shun that which is not useful to a given circumstance. I will repeat, the fundamental difference between you and me is that you think life and existence are rational. Rationality functions on laws, principles, and order. We can ascribe these qualities to various occurrences in nature but not everything abides by these rules. If so, then you could rationally and logically explain to be me when the next natural disaster will occur and why (or when and how you will die). Rationality is a product of the human mind. This is also why I consider you in mirror image to a Christian; a Christian takes something irrational (God) and gives it rational characteristics. An Atheist takes something irrational (God) and tries to understand it with rational characteristics. Humans are capable of rationality but they are not limited by it, there are in fact other ways of thinking (other types of consciousness). A very good argument on your part is that if something un-unicorn exists, then something unicorn also exists. But here we are simply arguing semantics because formlessness cannot be easily defined (is water formless, not on the molecular level). Formlessness is emptiness or the lack of substance? So I will ask you very simply, and think carefully about your response, is non-existence possible?
Existence itself can only be proven by observation; we establish that "existence is not nothing whatsoever", using a combination of both logic and observation. But since we diluted the logic, no particular thing within existence can be established logically.
Yes, but what are the tools that you use to obtain this observation? And why do you only allow yourself one set of tools?
However, I'll give you a free pass on this one, because you did make an error in assuming that something formless could "exist" in the strict sense of the word. Since proof of existence requires some observation, and observation requires some sort of form, nothing formless could ever be proven to exist. Formless things are not things; they do not exist, nor do they manifest themselves in any way. That is why they are so difficult to talk about.
Here you are arguing semantics not concepts. Non-existence is formless. In fact it is impossible for non-existence to have a form. Formlessness is used to describe (or in conjunction with) non-existence. When Mr. Hsuan uses the word formless, he is describing emptiness, the void, or non-existence. I will repeat. Is non-existence possible?
Your proofs cannot involve any observation, including intuitions and emotions. Your proofs will not establish existence. When you speak of formless things, you must be entirely logical.
This is where I wholeheartedly disagree. And that is why I bring up the limitations of science. It took scientists 3000 years to prove psycho-neuro-immunology. Scientists still can’t prove why we need to sleep at night or why a bumblebee can fly. It just depends on what type of proof you are willing to accept. How can you be entirely logical when trying to contemplate the nature of something entirely illogical (life and the nature of existence)? Give me evidence that life and existence function logically and I will accept your reasoning.
A perfect circle does not exist, and its only complete and proper manifestation is mathematically, in the form "(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 = r^2" -- now how do you comprehend something that neither exists, nor can manifest itself in even that poor, esoteric fashion? The word "nothingness" does not do it justice. The word "God" could not be further from the truth.
You are absolutely correct. I could not have said it better. And I do not consider myself superior to you. I consider you a teacher and a student, and I respect you, not just because you exist but because of your insights.
The important proof, which I have not seen adequately expressed, is how form can arise from formlessness. I know what formlessness would imply, and it is a far cry from the inside of a cup or the hole of a donut. The only way a formless "Tao" could produce a formed universe is if there was never an event (ie. a moment in time) when Tao created the universe. The reason is simple. An event would imply that the formlessness is manifesting itself in some concrete observable way... that the formlessness has form.
A thing cannot be both formed and formless. This is a far cry from mere oppositeness. This is total contradiction: a complete impossibility.
And that is why the formed and the formless are separate entities. That is why observable nature has form, while the eternal is formless. Think of the bellows, the bellows is not useful because of the wood and leather that constitute its form; it is useful because of the emptiness in between that wood and leather. The formless is that emptiness in between the forms. Energy (from duality) is working with the form (wood and leather) and utilizing emptiness (the formless) to constantly and endlessly circulate substance (push out air). Of all these elements only the emptiness is eternal. When attempting to communicate with something as limited as the written word formlessness/emptiness/non-existence/the void are the best descriptions for describing what is eternal. Everything else (as you said with your reference to the big bang) has a beginning and an end.
