Indian grinder found at my parent’s farm in Tucson
After I’d finished grinding out correlations to my satisfaction, I stood back and judged the process by the results, not by the process itself. (See Tools of Taoist Thought: Correlations) In other words, I judged the book by its cover. In this delusion, I naively thought this process would rip away other people’s preconceptions just as it had done for mine. The correlation process would forever change the world. It is difficult now to believe I believed that.
It took a few years for me to correlate my way to the realization that our mind actually sees a world that agrees with our emotional needs. This explains why two people can see the same facts on a particular issue so differently. Our interpretations follow our expectations. If anything, we view the world in a way that supports our preconceptions, and tend to reject any view that threatens them.
Looking back, I recall how it was no different for me grinding out correlations. Frequently words would correlate just opposite to what I wanted to see. However, my core need was to get to the bottom of things come hell or high water. It often took months for me to drop how I wanted to interpret a word and accept the more probable view.
Probable is the key word in the correlation process. No correlation is set in stone. If fact, ‘hard’, ‘concrete’ and ‘illusion’ all correlate to Yang. Remember that the process is key — not the results — when you’re struggling to reconcile words through the correlation process. You are challenging the way you think; resisting what you want to see versus what may be closer to reality.
The table here gives a taste. See if you don’t feel the Yang words share similarity and are complementary to the Yin words, which also share similarity. Of course, it helps to look for mysterious sameness here. Once you see the similarity within each group, and how the opposites complement each other, you will gradually feel an even deeper mysterious sameness between the two groups. As chapter 1 hints, These two are the same, But diverge in name as they issue forth. Being the same they are called mysteries.
Essentially, you are looking for what you have never seen, or thought you’d ever see, so it helps to keep the end of chapter 78 in mind: Straightforward words seem paradoxical.
This site is a wonderful collection of sudden downpoors. ‘Rarely’ might or might not relate to the amount of words. So, of course, I agree and I just remain.
Luke asked that question (i.e., If something isn’t trustworthy, isn’t it better to leave that trust broken?). I think the point he was aiming for was embedded in how ‘something‘ vrs. ‘trustworthy‘ correlate. In other words, ‘things‘ correlate to transitory, changing, cyclical, tangible. On the other hand, ‘trustworthy‘ correlates to an emotional sense and wish for ultimate integrity: un-changing, in-tangible, constant, shadowing and indistinct.
Anyway, I have a few thoughts on your post.
The problem with this is that you use words with which to perform your mind’s creativity, thought wise anyway. The meaning of words is determined by emotion, without which meaning vanishes. Trust is an deeply emotional phenomenon common to all animals and profoundly independent of language.
The word hypocrisy conveys to me one’s attempt to maintain a modicum of intellectual consistency in the face of one’s underlying emotional inconsistencies, i.e., the completely natural wish (common to all life) to have ‘it’ both ways – to have our cake and eat it two.
I’m afraid I got a little lost in your logic. I find that the more I write to make a point, the further I often get from the point. Perhaps always. More words tend to obfuscate. I suspect our mind uses that tactic to evade the simple and straightforward to allow us to ‘have it both way’. Either you fell into this trap, or I am not clever enough to get your main point … or both.
Next time try using fewer words and see how that works. After all, to use words but rarely Is to be natural. Alas, like most truly meaningful things in life, that’s easier said than done!
It’s been a while, but I felt some joy when I read your response. It’s rather interesting how the lists of opposites can suit a situation.
So, is it correct that you perceived that I did not answer your main question? This is a tricky question, but it could be perceived as a less peaceful one, which is not my intention at all 😉
Your main question was: ‘If something isn’t trustworthy, isn’t it better to leave that trust broken?’
Suppose I reformulate this question:
If [condition] isn’t it better to leave that trust broken?
Depending on the actual [condition] used in this question, the resulting question may have preferable answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But still, the latter part of the question seems to suggest that the answer to this question is ‘yes’, with no questions asked. This in itself may be conceived as a broken trust. Should I leave it at that?
I chose to answer…
Therefore, instead of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, I chose to make it clear that although the broken trust may arise in the human awareness when [condition] seems reasonable, the fact remains that this broken trust can be used – often unconsciously – to enhance understanding and make [condition] less reasonable.
So, if something isn’t trustworthy… try to find reasons why that something is actually trustworthy in a different context. As you may notice, there is no context in the [condition] at hand. So, again, this does not make the question a trustworthy one, or so it seems, in the sense that a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ actually would make a case for or against something that makes sense. It made sense to me to make a context for this question (this post), apart from the one that it arose in (namely your post).
Although I gave two reasons why your main question is not trustworthy – in itself a rather surprising statement – it still remains a question! In your list of yin-yang opposites, the words ‘question’ and ‘trustworthy’ are in the same column. This means that I have tried to show that your ensemble is not tenable, at least when you integrate my point of view.
When you decide to integrate my point of view, the interesting question becomes whether it is necessary for my or your point of view to be the correct one, or whether it is only important that they are different and that they both have a value to take into account. In the absence of different points of view, no adjustment of the current ensembles seems possible. The ensembles become a tool to try and integrate different points of view. To investigate the effects of changing the columns of certain words opens up a way of understanding that would otherwise be very difficult to appreciate. Instead of fixing a certain ensemble, the realization that all ensembles are consistent in a way, although perhaps not fitting your personal worldview, may ultimately restore a broken trust.
Thus, your main question is a perfect example that inspired me to illustrate why there could be reasons not to leave the trust broken.
Therefore, it is perfectly fine that this question may enter the ‘yin’ column when you consider it a question and by that property trustworthy, and it may also enter the ‘yang’ column for its violent breach of trust in the value of mending trust.
I hold your last question a much better one, although this one seems to have originated from a certain surprise conclusion.
It states: ‘If you can define words to mean whatever you want, [then] can’t anything you say be hypocritical, or at best, meaningless?’
Again, the condition of this question is not relevant to its conclusion: indeed, I say, anything could be hypocritical and meaningless! But that’s not the point. The point is, that by changing the meaning of words – is this what happens when you put a word in another column? – it may have benefits for you in the way that you view the world, even towards being less hypocritical.
It is a fallacy to believe that a word should belong in a single column, but it is perfectly rational to re-evaluate the ensembles you use certain words in, so as to assist you in a more consistent world view. You may even become aware of different ensembles that can be very usable in different contexts. This awareness of the used ensemble you use for a certain word, increases your conscious use of words in ways you intend to use them in the context at hand; this is all but hypocritical or meaningless.
Instead of trusting in single meanings for a word or a definite answer to which columns a certain word belongs, it seems better to trust in the creativity of your mind to resolve an internal conflict by simply using a different ensemble that suits you better. Meanings of words change over time anyway, and it might be time to update your definitions…
Hypocrisy can mean different things as well, besides those stated in a dictionary (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy):
– to maintain a certain ensemble of yin-yang opposites in view of evidence of other ensembles that are consistent as well (in fact such a yin-yang ensemble may be used to define their consistency);
– maintaining the opinion that there can be only one correct ensemble of yin-yang opposites while knowingly or unknowingly using different ones.
Stretching the meaning of concepts is a powerful way to escape from or point out a narrow interpretation, when you feel that the narrow interpretation is inappropriate. Could you view my post as a demonstration of the opposite of hypocrisy, despite the fact that I have redefined the word ‘hypocrisy’ as I understand it?
If your answer is yes, then this post has been meaningful as well. But again, the premise is not relevant to its conclusion…
Was I asking questions or making remarks, you ask? Both, or neither… I guess…
In general, I prefer asking questions to giving answers when it comes to such philosophical issues. Perhaps it’s because I realize (more as I get older) that even if one has “answers,” knowledge, wisdom (not that I have these things, mind you)… these things cannot be imparted on others, try as one might. The “answer” comes from within. Sometimes—just sometimes—a question can steer one’s thought process toward a new discovery, if one is ready to investigate for themselves, but that’s about all.
Put another way, I correlate question/answer as such:
Yang – Yin
analytical – intuitive
hard – soft
energy – space
violent – peaceful
shifting – stationary
fickle – trustworthy
illusionary – real
answer – question
Unfortunately, I think my main question was overshadowed by my other comments/questions, which were really much shallower. So let me restate my question, which was:
If something isn’t trustworthy, isn’t it better to leave that trust broken?
Put another way: you say, “your freedom to redefine words is never limited.” That strikes me as the definition of hypocrisy. Not your statement itself, mind you, but the ramifications: if you can define words to mean whatever you want, can’t anything you say be hypocritical, or at best, meaningless?
Hi Luke,
In my previous post of April 26, I gave away a hint to your remark / question ‘So, for example, give and take, … If you place them in the same column, well, you need to have antonyms or otherwise it’s meaningless.’
First of all, let me ask you: is this a remark or a question? If it is a remark, you are not giving the antonyms that beg the question. If it is a question, the answer has been partially given.
Now, here is an example to find antonyms to ‘give’ and ‘take’, when you place them in the same column as I would.
If you give, something of you is transmitted to somebody else by your own volition. To find an antonym, change ‘by your own volition’ into ‘against your volition’, resulting in the antonym ‘being robbed’.
If you take, you act consciously to make you owner. To find an antonym, change ‘consciously’ into ‘unconsciously’ and ‘to make you owner’ to ‘disown you’, resulting in the antonym ‘lose’.
[As an exercise, try to show that it is also possible that ‘being robbed’ is the antonym of ‘take’ and ‘lose’ is the antonym of ‘give’.]
To help you with the entry ‘nothing’ vs. ‘mystery’, I would say that to me nothing is an answer to every mystery. The ‘nothing’ in my worldview is filled with answers. ‘nothing’ is not nothing (because there is at least a word for it, and therefore, something corresponds to nothing.) But indeed, it is intriguing, even to me, that my view allows ‘nothing’ to be an antonym to ‘mystery’, but it is clear that a mystery does not yet have an answer. The tension between these disappear, when you realize that any mystery comes with its answer that has to come out of nothing.
These are just some examples and I am sure you are strengthened in your broken trust, however from this side, the phenomenon under discussion is not a broken trust any more – or else, how could I provide answers to the point I was making before?
In my view *this* entry is a constructive action to communicate a way to personally investigate how you come up with the antonyms in your own table if you would make one.
So, if the default would be to place ‘give’ and ‘take’ in different columns, there is nevertheless a different but coherent view of reality, where they belong in the same columns. The broken trust will be mended, if you perceive that no choice is the better one and you are free to arrange the words according to your own preferences.
When at last you will find that no coherent world view is coherent in *all* aspects of reality, your question will shift towards amending your own table with respect to table entries that bare relevance to your current situation. If you deem it necessary to replace or define antonyms where you perceive an inconsistency or gap, you are free to do so. In effect you have resolved the tension that existed in your previous table and it will work for the current situation until something else comes up. However, your freedom to redefine words is never limited, and if you do this consciously, your world view changes surely but gradually to one that fits you better, even to one where you know yourself.
Feel free to respond.
Yeah, but if something isn’t trustworthy, isn’t it better to leave that trust broken? 🙂
Also, aren’t the words in correlations defined by their antonyms? That is, comparisons between two words (in the context of the entirety of the two columns). So, for example, give and take, by placing them in separate columns you’re defining each in contrast with the other. If you place them in the same column, well, you need to have antonyms or otherwise it’s meaningless. If you put them in the same column, what are their antonyms? (After all, some words could be in both columns, depending on the antonym.)
Similarly, I found the distinction between nothing and mystery intriguing. I guess if I had to correlate those, I would use a capital “N”, and put Nothing in the same “Yang” column as defined, answer, active, and illusion, because defining nothing as “Nothing” turns it into something, which doesn’t reflect it’s nature as well, so it’s an illusion. (Chapter one!)
Luke
“One will know one is being self honest and rigorous if one ends up re-categorizing words over time, and ends up with a significant degree of ‘broken trust’ in word meaning. (i.e., a ‘void’ opens wider and wider until you become capable of not knowing anything.) Oh goody, just what everyone wants, eh!”
I couldn’t agree with you more, only most people do not yet know what they want… If I could only speed up becoming aware of what I want! It’s been a pleasure sharing this.
One more thing, to heal your broken trust, keep on redefining. Eventually, reality will respond to the meaning you give it. As sure as I am part of it.
Hi Cuc, You are one of the few folks I know to actually attempt to wrestle with this process. That’s interesting by itself! I am curious to see where it takes your mind over time if you keep on with it. Most of those I know who have attempted it seem to give up before too long.
I’ve found that this unconscious bias naturally declined as I lost trust in the truth of word meaning.
Yes! There, I put God in the yang side as it correlates to ‘famous, something, King, answer’. If perhaps, I write God with a small ‘g’ (god), then god correlates more easily to tao, and both fit more easily on the yin side. By the same token, big ‘T’ tao correlates with big ‘G’ god, and then I see both correlating to the yang side: ‘famous, something, King, answer’.
Each correlation define each other correlation’s meaning. It is the ‘whole column view’ (yin or yang) that imparts word meaning. Being consistent and rigorous allows you to catch your own inconsistencies, and will eventually weaken the word and name foundations of cognitive awareness. First though, if you would have a thing weakened, you must first strengthen it. Correlations helps strengthening word meaning.
This is where the true value of the correlation process lies. It offers a way to view how you view your world view. I found it to be a profound struggle. It really doesn’t matter which column one puts any concept as long as one brings self honesty and rigor to the process. One will know one is being self honest and rigorous if one ends up re-categorizing words over time, and ends up with a significant degree of ‘broken trust’ in word meaning. (i.e., a ‘void’ opens wider and wider until you become capable of not knowing anything.) Oh goody, just what everyone wants, eh!
Hi Carl,
It took a while for me to return… Thank you for this explanation. Yes, I understand your position on rationalizing in the sense that it seems there is no discipline. On the other hand, ‘rationalizing the view to fit what you emotionally wish to see’ as you put it seems to me a rather irrational or even unconscious process. For it is well known that what you see always fits your beliefs (or wishes). So, your explanation does not help to clarify to me the point you are trying to make.
To explain a bit more, I’d like to add that putting ‘yin’ with small letters in the ‘Yang’ column is not just a lack of discipline. This would be my attempt to dismantle the preconceptions I noticed in the first table. It is understandable that you call my table inconsistent, but that tells me something about you, rather than about me. Let me return the favor…
In your case of give and take, you put them in different columns, but they would be both ‘Yang’ in your view as I understand it, because it is always you who initiates, while for instance ‘receiving’ and ‘losing’ are outside of your active role and have a certain limitlessness to them. That has to do with your capability to allow, i.e. not being active.
There is also a possibility to put both God and Tao in the ‘Yin’ column, if you uphold that both principles are infinite and limitless. On the other hand, they must be placed in the Yang column when it is understood that only you can give a sense to them, unique to your references, making them temporary. Thus they may be put side by side instead of opposing eachother.
To fathom that these different choices and their resulting tables are all possible representations of your reality, such a personal table does give you information about the person who makes it, because each row shows a current imbalance of the concepts that ideally have no tension between them. In a true balanced table, one should EXPECT the yin in the Yang table, because there wouldn’t be a tension between Yin and Yang. To say that that is a lack of discipline, again, is part of your evaluation, not mine.
The other point I wanted to make, is that comparing tables of different people may point out that there does not seem to be a rationale in the concepts themselves, but it shows that there is a rationale within each person. A person may reevaluate his choices, again proving that there is not a reason to believe that any pair of opposites can have only one consistent or coherent choice for Yin-Yang or Yang-Yin. Indeed, it may be refreshing to switch a single pair and try to reevaluate how it fits you.
If somebody can – depending on the circumstances – consciously change his inner evaluation of certain concepts, so that they fall in a different column than before or are paired with different opposites than before, it is a way of being flexible to a very high degree. To me that would be the value of drawing up such a table in the first place, to find out how to reevaluate the opposites you seem to have fixed in your view of the world.
That’s a good first attempt at correlations despite the inconsistencies. For correlations, the ‘prime directive’ is to use antonyms, aligning similar (i.e., pseudo synonyms I guess you’d call them) meaning word down on column with their antonyms down the other. Compare these two sets; first is yours and then mine below that.
Now, for example, you place ‘yin’ in the YANG column, and ‘yang’ in the YIN column. Doing that turns the ‘correlation’ process in a ‘rationalization’ process. In other words, there is no discipline in thought and you easily end up rationalizing the view to fit what you emotionally wish to see. I put the other inconsistencies, e.g., give-take, love-kill, etc., in italic. Taking and killing, for example are very active relative to their opposites, and so belong in the active YANG column along with the other active words. Death, on the other hand, correlates to YIN. Death is eternal, universal, passive; killing is transitional, particular, active. It may seem ironic at first, but killing and life are both similar and fall on the YANG side of the coil.
I understand your putting ‘I’ and ‘nothing’ on one side and ‘you’ and ‘mystery’ on the other. And this order can make sense when viewing just these few in a detached way. The more rigorous your initial work to reconcile synonyms and antonyms the more coherent the view. Then you can begin the process of seeing the complementary nature of the relationships. After that, you begin to see the illusion of difference which helps disentangles words from ‘reality’.
Your version:
My version:
This observation is the key.
This key is the process.
This process is observation.
To unite rather then to exclude renders extremes into lovers of their polarity.
To illustrate this, look at this verse of the bible.
Isa 44:6 – Thus saith the LORD (-> YHVH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God (-> Elohim).
Let me try to expand the list (left ‘Yang’, right ‘Yin’), just to make clear that the way you pick the yin-yang polarity is arbitrary, i.e. subjective.
—
“Yang” – “Yin”
straightforward – confusing
conclusion – process
attachment – detachment
yin – yang
Tao – Elohim (God)
writing – saying
YHVH – Israel
first – last
I – you (besides me)
nothing – mystery
king – redeemer
give – take
love – kill
author – reader
—
The above will challenge you to integrate not only the polarity between words, but also the (perceived) polarity between teachings.
When you are free to choose which of the opposites belongs to Yin and which belongs to Yang, the one that seems farthest from your preconceived idea is the one that will balance your preconception and thus the challenge is to obtaining peace with the tension between the opposites.
If we keep the classification fixed at all times, our idea will get challenged over and over, while when we are flexible at all times, especially when we feel tention, our idea will not be challenged but formed. The formation process continues eternally and therefore life and death become interchangeable.
Taken to the extreme, this means that life can bring death and death can bring life. It is easy to think about it, but…
When will you actually exchange your life for death and your death for life?
AND
When will you be able to exchange them more than once?
Would you die first, to find that you are still alive?
OR
Would you fail dying all your life, to find that you have failed living?
Would you live to know about death?
OR
Would you die constantly to know about life?