Paradox of transcendence

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Steven,

I've always interpreted the passage as a reference to spiritual impermanence.

In a sense, it is. But it also contrasts impermanance with permanance, so it is also a reference to permanance. There are two different taos mentioned. An impermanant idea that we form (the tao that taos and does all these things), and the "ever-lasting tao" (Tao) which includes all ideas we have of it -- and indeed, everything else that exists.

How else would they recognize Tao?

The same way that someone recognizes Existence, the Totality, the Infinite, the Absolute, Being, Reality, Everything, God, etc.. These are all roughly synonymous: fingers pointing from different directions at the same thing.

To recognize Tao requires logical thinking: "Tao (Reality) is not nothing whatsoever."

In other words, The Totality exists only as a mental construct.

Yes. As far as it exists, it is a construct of the mind. But that is not to say there is no Totality, nor is it to say that it cannot be understood. Things exist: that which causes the things to exist cannot. It transcends existence, since it defines existence -- by being Existence.

How can you know about Being, if not for the being?

Being cannot know itself, just as certainly as no logical system -- even the most basic Aristotelian notions of non-contradiction -- cannot provide the conditions of itself.

Can a being know Being?

[Steven Coyle]

S: In other words, The Totality exists only as a mental construct.

T: Yes. As far as it exists, it is a construct of the mind. But that is not to say there is no Totality, nor is it to say that it cannot be understood. Things exist: that which causes the things to exist cannot. It transcends existence, since it defines existence -- by being Existence.

Got it.

As a result of A=A, The Totality cannot exist within the parameters of existence.

S: How can you know about Being, if not for the being?

T: Being cannot know itself, just as certainly as no logical system -- even the most basic Aristotelian notions of non-contradiction -- cannot provide the conditions of itself.

Can a being know Being?

If the being was acausal . . .

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Steven,

If the being was acausal . . .

Why would a being need to be acausal to know Being? You seemed to have no difficulty knowing that A=A, and you are certainly causal.

[Steven Coyle]

S: If the being was acausal . . .

T: Why would a being need to be acausal to know Being? You seemed to have no difficulty knowing that A=A, and you are certainly causal.

I misunderstood your previous question.

A being can know Being, via A=A, which accurately describes perception of a thing, via causality, which unfolds the workings of the Universe, via emptiness, which amounts to a lack of inherent existence in all phenomena.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Steven, agreed, and thank you.

It looks that you've figured out that this "paradox of transcendence" is not really an issue at all. It's just a misunderstanding.

I know what the result is, and I've figured this out myself; I just can't figure out why xero solved this incorrectly. Since it's fresher in your mind, maybe you can help.

If I had to guess, I would say that the problem lies somewhere in his proposition "a given thing exists or it doesn't", since only there is xero making a statement about things -- and when I questioned him, he mistook Reality for a thing.

Can a thing fail to exist, or are all things existents?

Does a "non-existent thing" make logical sense, based on the definitions? ...because I'm thinking it might be a contradiction.

[Steven Coyle]

Hey Trevor,

Well, to be honest, I haven't been paying this thread much attention, other than the clarification of a few concepts that had gathered some dust.

I'll give my best.

T: If I had to guess, I would say that the problem lies somewhere in his proposition "a given thing exists or it doesn't", since only there is xero making a statement about things -- and when I questioned him, he mistook Reality for a thing.

...

T: xero, Existence (another word for "Reality") is not a thing.

X: Actually it is. Anything which has boundaries is a thing.

Existence has boundaries, therefore existence is a thing.

I also think the answer to xeno's metaphysical misconception lies somewhere above.

He's still defining bounderies by his own set of personal beliefs, as opposed to a purely logical system.

He has yet to realize/conceptualize the formless nature of Reality.

--

T: Can a thing fail to exist, or are all things existents?

As soon as a thing is brought to mind it exists (whether it is real or not is another discussion):

A=not-A would represent a thing failing to exist.

Or/also, once a thing is caused to come into existence, then it can be said to properly exist.

[xerosaburu]

xero, what are the boundaries of Existence?

nonexistence

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert,

There seems to be crucial difference with how you said it. Not sure about your capitalizing though.

I was trying to indicate the notion that if you are talking about a "tao" that can tao, you aren't actually talking about Tao at all. You are giving it a property that it would be nonsensical for it to have.

The reason I quoted Tao Te Ching was that the whole work talks about tao being (like) this or that, doing this or that. Just creating a new schism between a tao and Tao, with the tao being the one we can talk about (or doing something) and a Tao which we can't talk about being this or doing that, doesn't appear to be helping matters much, in most cases.

You're always describing no matter how many capitals or additional qualifiers you'd introduce. The word 'tao' is a good choice because it points to so many aspects at the same time, including the use as verb in this case.

If I had to, I would actually translate the first line of the Tao te Ching directly (with no extra words), and simply change the grammar to one which is more logical (like an implication).

tao can tao -> not-Tao

Don't introduce new words with capitals!
tao can tao - not eternal tao.
But what I think is a better way to look at this is:

The tao that moves is not the tao that stands still.

Which one is the 'real' tao? What if there's only one? Without caps?

For instance, if someone starts talking about the Tao and how it tells them things, or does really anything in particular (even tao-ing), they are not talking about the Tao at all.

Where's the Tao Te Ching about then? They should have renamed the book too.

I think you are confusing the part with the whole. Existence (another word for the Totality) cannot be a thing: it includes all things -- and can't possibly include itself.

The whole point of the exercise is to relate the part with the whole. A whole comes into existence the moment you introduce a part.

I do not believe that there is a similar problem with the verb "existing". I can be sitting here, just existing, and encounter no logical contradiction when I ponder in what sense I am existing.

But you are caused by everything else. It's hard to define where you start and the rest of existence stops. So is existence sitting there, "existing"?

That is certainly true, but the point that I've been trying to make is that the "never-changing reason" (in other words, Reason with a capital R) itself does not reason. It does not do what it encompasses. A being can exist, but Being cannot. To speak otherwise is simply a misunderstanding of the scope of Being.

Be careful what you introduce with the capital B. You have now defined being that exists and being that (can)not exists. Does that lead to having defined two beings? The being that is, which is not the not-being being?

Sorry for anyone reading who finds this confusing and all word play. Just scroll along.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero, then what are the boundaries of non-existence?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

xero, then what are the boundaries of non-existence?

10-1 he answers "existence."

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert,

Don't introduce new words with capitals!

I'm simply saving my typing hand, since I've seen the capitalization done in more than one translation of the Tao Te Ching. It's short-hand for "ever-lasting tao", to distinguish the ever-lasting, unchanging, absolute path from the ephemeral path.

Which one is the 'real' tao? What if there's only one? Without caps?

Of course there's only one real tao. Just as there's only one real reality.

Where's the Tao Te Ching about then? They should have renamed the book too.

The book is named after the first letters of the two volumes that comprise it. Tao is the first letter of the first volume; Te is the first letter of the second volume. I don't remember what Ching means, but it's also pretty neutral.

The whole point of the exercise is to relate the part with the whole. A whole comes into existence the moment you introduce a part.

The whole never comes into existence, since it is existence.

Be careful what you introduce with the capital B. You have now defined being that exists and being that (can)not exists. Does that lead to having defined two beings? The being that is, which is not the not-being being?

Strange that you should point this out now, when I had just been discussing the problems with xero's first post, when he said "a given thing exists or it doesn't."

I hope you don't read too far into the implication that there can possibly be a being that doesn't exist. When I said "a being can exist", that was in contrast to Being, which cannot. Not to another being which cannot.

You are actually right, but it seems a very detached sort of correct that only notices when I use the B-word, but not when I use the T-word, the R-word, the E-word, the I-word... or any of the other fingers that point to the moon.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The Truth is that Ultimate Reality is equally the Ultimate Lie. Seeing past reality and fiction, truth and falsehood, is what transcendence is about. Ultimate Truth is the Ultimate Lie, and it can be no other way. If Truth were not a Lie, then either all that most perceive as real would be, or would not be perceived as real when it is not. The Totality would not be a single, All-encompassing point/non-point. Existence would be real. Truth is as Ugly as the Mona Lisa splattered in neon green and day-glow orange paint because there is more to it than truth, and you can assign whatever aesthetic value to it you want - which means it is all a Lie.

Anyone who loves the Truth and finds It beautiful would also hate the Falseness and find It ugly - which is what makes Reality too ugly to love, yet too beautiful to hate.

[xerosaburu]

xero, then what are the boundaries of non-existence?

existence

Therefore everything is bound and transcendence is only a relative construct.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Eliza, nice guess. :)

xero: does non-existence exist or not?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Don't introduce new words with capitals!

I'm simply saving my typing hand, since I've seen the capitalization done in more than one translation of the Tao Te Ching. It's short-hand for "ever-lasting tao", to distinguish the ever-lasting, unchanging, absolute path from the ephemeral path.

I'm not aware of the Tao Te Ching using "ever-lasting tao" through all of its texts. It's talking about tao, period. What it appears to do, what it appears to be like, how it manifests, which nature it has - its activities and its stillness.

Which one is the 'real' tao? What if there's only one? Without caps?

Of course there's only one real tao. Just as there's only one real reality.

A reality which cannot be said to be either moving or constant. It only has those aspects from a 'moving' perspective, which we cannot help having.

The whole point of the exercise is to relate the part with the whole. A whole comes into existence the moment you introduce a part.

The whole never comes into existence, since it is existence.

Language should stop right here because it starts generating too much contradiction this way.

I hope you don't read too far into the implication that there can possibly be a being that doesn't exist. When I said "a being can exist", that was in contrast to Being, which cannot. Not to another being which cannot.

But there's no 'other' being to start with. There's one being existing and/or non-existing. Moving in and out of it if you will. The very movement between existence and non-existence is called 'creation'. That's where one can realize the only true being, never in any contrasting. Though contrasts do point out when well placed.

You are actually right, but it seems a very detached sort of correct that only notices when I use the B-word, but not when I use the T-word, the R-word, the E-word, the I-word... or any of the other fingers that point to the moon.

It's with all words and names exactly the same, though harder to see and thus less meaningful to point out.

[Jamesh]

There are no boundaries to existence, there are only boundaries within existence. It is not so much that boundaries alone create existence, causal action is also required, but that they create forms of existence.

The concept of absolute non-existence is entirely delusional. It is an impossibility. Of The Totality, there is no part that does not have causal power, and the totality has no outside.

Non-existence of course can apply to a form that once was.

[xerosaburu]

Eliza, nice guess. :)

xero: does non-existence exist or not?

For us it exists as a substitutionary mental construct.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero,

For us it exists as a substitutionary mental construct.

Is that the same as it not existing? ...because I'm having a hard time picturing a mental construct binding all of existence into any given form, especially a form bound by something that doesn't exist outside the imagination.

Chalk it up to my own limited imagination.