• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

CenterTao.org

taoism, taoist thought, buddha, yoga, tai chi, shakuhachi

  • Home
  • Tao Te Ching
  • Ways
  • Facebook Group
  • Blowing Zen

Grinding Out Correlations

Indian grinder found at my parent’s farm in Tucson

After I 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, p.565.) This was akin to judging a book by its cover. In this delusion, I naively thought this process would shred other people’s preconceptions just as it had done for mine, and as a result, the process would change the world. It is very hard now to believe I ever thought 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 an issue so differently. Our interpretations follow our needs, fears, and 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 find the underlying cause of things… regardless. It often took months for me to drop how I emotionally needed to interpret a word and accept the more probable view.

Probable is a key word in the Correlation process. No Correlation is set in stone. In 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.

Feb 14, 2009 by Carl Abbott
Filed Under: Observations, Times of Yore

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Cuc says

    Jun 17, 2009 at 6:02 am

    After all, to use words but rarely is to be natural.

    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.

  2. carl says

    Jun 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    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 😉

    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.

    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…

    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.

    Hypocrisy can mean different things as well, besides those stated in a dictionary.

    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.

    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…

    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!

  3. Cuc says

    Jun 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    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…

  4. Luke Abbott says

    Apr 30, 2009 at 11:27 am

    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?

  5. Cuc says

    Apr 29, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    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.

  6. Luke Abbott says

    Apr 27, 2009 at 10:07 am

    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

  7. Cuc says

    Apr 27, 2009 at 3:55 am

    “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.

  8. carl says

    Apr 26, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    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.

    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.

    I’ve found that this unconscious bias naturally declined as I lost trust in the truth of word meaning.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

  9. Cuc says

    Apr 26, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    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.

  10. carl says

    Mar 4, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    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:

    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

    My version:

    YANG YIN
    active passive
    answer question
    begin end
    hold drop
    walk way
    first last
    speak listen
    sound silence
    something nothing
    take give
    hate love
    king the people
    performer audience
    God tao
    famous nameless
    order entropy
  11. Cuc says

    Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 am

    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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Monthly Chapter 71 (pandemic era)

See previous chapter postings

Search

Overview

Is Taoism a Religion?   Read more...
What is Taoist thought?   Read more...
What is the root of thought? Read more...

Who is CenterTao?

CenterTao is a non-profit corporation founded in 1982.     Read more...

Subscribe via Email

Tags

addiction balance belief bio-hoodwink Buddha children civilization consciousness desire ego emergent property emotion expectations fairness instinct family fear food freedom freewill future happy hunter gatherer imagination independance instinct knowing language learning mind mysterious sameness need parents pleasure v pain religion responsibility science stress symptoms point of view tai chi tao thinking understanding what is tao worry yoga

Recent Comments

  • Carl Abbott on Is Rock Conscious?
  • MosesK on Is Rock Conscious?
  • Carl Abbott on Alleviating the Hoarding Disorder
  • Carl Abbott on Instinctive Free Will
  • Erin on Alleviating the Hoarding Disorder
  • Carl Abbott on Small ‘t’ Taoists
  • J on Small ‘t’ Taoists
  • Carl Abbott on Buddha’s Truths Pertain To All Life
  • NoahPayne95 on Trump and the Mandate of Heaven
  • Peter on Buddha’s Truths Pertain To All Life

Past Observations

  • Taoist Thought
  • The Tradeoff
  • Buddha’s Truths Pertain To All Life
  • Trump and the Mandate of Heaven
  • Refreshing Redundancy
  • The Year Is 1915
  • We All Know We Don’t Know
  • Who are you? (Part V)
  • Who are you? (Part IV)
  • Who are you? (Part III)
  • Who are you? (Part II)
  • Who are you?
  • The Word Trap
  • Stressors of Comfort and Security
  • “Right state of peaceful mind”
  • What Climate Catastrophy?
  • Straight Poop on the Paleo Diet
  • Fear & Need Born in Nothing
  • Science Proves Buddha Right!
  • Alleviating the Hoarding Disorder
  • Amazon mother
  • Cultivating Character
  • Cultivating Ego
  • Passing judgment is healthy if…
  • Necessity is the Mother
  • Practice what you preach
  • Of Mountains, Molehills and the Supernatural
  • Civilized Insanity
  • Ancient Signs Of Modern Behavior
  • The Good Old Days
  • Modus Operandi
  • Alone with Thought
  • A proper sense of awe
  • CenterTao Group Anyone?
  • Loving Your Eco-System
  • Where does the fault lie?
  • Taoist secrets
  • Laws as Symptoms, not Solutions
  • Loss Aversion Management
  • Mind Over Milkshake
  • Flow Triggers
  • Naturally Racist
  • BRAIN
  • Managing Our Disorders
  • Bono & Musk on Creativity
  • The Harmless People
  • Born Again Taoist
  • Free Willers Anonymous
  • Instinctive Free Will
  • Stupidly Intelligent
  • The Proof is in the Pudding
  • A Wealth of Happiness
  • Natural Happiness
  • Is Happiness In Your Choices?
  • Profound Connections Enlighten
  • Religion… an Opiate?
  • Is Gen Y Unhappy?
  • Remember the Disease
  • The Pendulum Swings
  • You are Immortal!
  • A Rose By Any Other Name
  • Emotion Speaks… Literally
  • I Look, But Do I See?
  • Just like Us, Just like Them
  • Science’s Baby Steps
  • Worthy of a Noble Life?
  • Who says chickens are stupid?
  • Seeking Out Untruth
  • Earn It to Learn It
  • Counterbalancing I.Q.
  • Mind Run Away; Run Away Mind
  • “The rich suffer in comfort”
  • Self-Predation
  • Finding Your Original Self
  • Feeding the Worry Gene
  • Hold the Knowable
  • Good Enough Is!
  • Ponder Between the Lines
  • Soaking in Inspiration
  • A Tao of Parenting
  • Buddha’s Work
  • Insatiably Curious at 70?
  • Breathe Into It
  • Tao of Government
  • Will-to-Live, Free or Otherwise
  • Begin New Years with a smile
  • The Why Of It
  • The Truth vs. The Middle
  • Dumbfounding
  • A Taoist Creed
  • Of Free Will, I Am
  • Discomfort and Pain
  • Undecided? You bet!
  • Siren’s Song of Politics
  • “It’s the Economy Stupid”
  • Networks of Networks of….
  • Can we pull the plug?
  • Yamaguchi San
  • “Fixation on same same”
  • Beware: the Blind Spot
  • And Then There Was Fire
  • Tao and Democracy
  • What’s Not the Elephant?
  • Upping the Ante
  • A Word to the Wise?
  • A Bee with Personality
  • Necessity, the Mother
  • Guilt, Shame and the Name Game
  • The Secret to Happiness!
  • It Began Now
  • I am foolish of human mind also?
  • Seat of Consciousness
  • What Follows Loss of the Way?
  • Placebo Effect
  • Imagining a Better Way
  • Who or What Do You Trust?
  • Giving Your Life a Gift
  • The Only Safe Escape
  • Use Non-Responsibility
  • Be Careful What You Wish
  • Jack of All Trades, Master of None?
  • We only understand what we know
  • Two Paths
  • The Trans Tribal Tao
  • Resistance is Futile
  • A Brother is a Brother
  • Really, Have We No Clue?
  • Why?
  • Gone Fishin’, Back Soon
  • Check One Off the Bucket List
  • Opiate of the Masses
  • The Wealthy Poor
  • Dreaming the Way
  • Sobering up!
  • Oh My Aching Bones
  • The Utility of Knowing What You Don’t Know
  • Naturally Unnatural, Naturally!
  • Naked Thought
  • Success Thru Failure
  • I, Amoeba
  • Why Man is King
  • Ethics as an Emergent Property
  • Loss is Gain; Gain is Loss
  • “… Strive On Diligently”
  • Is Pain the Constant?
  • Ants Are Us
  • Feeling Animal-ness
  • Pleasure Isn’t Well Being
  • Is Rock Conscious?
  • See No Evil
  • Keep ’em guessing?
  • Thou Shalt Not…
  • You Are What You Own
  • Priorities
  • We!
  • You Know
  • Who You Are Determines Who I Am, & Visa Versa
  • An Improper Sense of Awe
  • Thoughts and Ducks Quacking
  • The poetry of it all
  • So, I’d like to ask…
  • Don’t trust anyone under 60
  • Imagination knows no end
  • In Praise Of Nothing
  • It’s Simply Nature’s Way
  • The Truth About Lies
  • It’s Time We Changed Our Name
  • Fear Rules
  • Nothing’s Certain but Death and…
  • Reward, Fear & Need
  • He Who Conquers Self
  • Democracy as Myth
  • So, You Want Enlightenment, Eh?
  • When Is Attachment Good?
  • Let Sleeping Dogs Lie
  • The Story Trumps Truth
  • Water in Mind
  • Why God?
  • Playing With Dolls
  • Belief in Nothing is Dangerous
  • Illusions, Everywhere I Think
  • Wandering Mind Is Unhappy Mind
  • Love
  • Small ‘t’ Taoists
  • Beyond Spooky
  • My Battle With Tobacco
  • John Cleese, a ‘Taoist’?
  • The Nutty Things We Do
  • A Symptom’s Point Of View
  • Fear Is The Bottom Line
  • Change we can believe in?
  • Science, Religion, Truth
  • Children Know What Adults Forget
  • The Spirit of Yoga
  • The less I think, the more I know
  • Exquisite Balance
  • Skullduggery is rampant in nature
  • What Shapes How You Think?
  • Tao As Emergent Property
  • Balancing Difference With Similarity
  • Thinking clouds consciousness
  • Where Is Freedom?
  • Decisions Decisions
  • Poor Thais And Rich Swedes
  • Time’s Arrow
  • Desire and Contentment
  • Learning What You Know
  • We’re Not So Different After All
  • Chairs: One of Our Big Mistakes
  • Gossip, Hysteria, News
  • The Family Purse
  • Swarm Savvy
  • SETI… Quixotic SETI
  • The Worry Gene
  • Odds Are, It’s Wrong
  • Bathtub Tai Chi
  • How the Hoodwink Hooks
  • Omega-3 and Vitamin D
  • He Who Speaks Does Not Know, but…
  • Hunger: A Natural Stimulant
  • Know Truth, Live True
  • Why Not Protest To Raise Taxes?
  • Self Integrity, Slime, and Karma
  • A How-To for Extinguishing Self
  • Significant Others
  • Headstands and Apes
  • The Future Takes Care of Itself
  • Teachers and Students
  • Are You As Happy As You Should Be?
  • Keeping Birthday Happy
  • Why Do Idiot Savants Run Things?
  • Trust But Verify
  • Are You A Beliefaholic?
  • Sage Advice from Wall Street
  • Of Course It’s Alive!
  • What Am I Doing?
  • I understand, but do I know?
  • Just In: We’re All Nuts!
  • The Future is Now!
  • Peeking Through the Covers
  • Innately Ethical
  • Can You Believe What You See?
  • Suicide Just Doesn’t Work
  • A Hypochondriac’s Miracle Cure
  • An Essential Taoist Secret
  • Just How Big Is The Gap?
  • The Theory of God
  • Who is Right?
  • You Are Who You Are By Default
  • Cave Man Shakuhachi?
  • Into the Jungle?
  • Swimming Tai Chi Spermatozoa Style
  • Are you out of touch with nature?
  • It was a dark and stormy night…
  • Cease Treading Water and Just Sink
  • Enjoy What You Do – or – Do What You Enjoy?
  • The Glare Hides ‘Out There’ From View
  • The illusion of ‘moment’
  • Consciousness Physics
  • A Taoist Solution to Gay Marriage
  • Emotion Clear-cuts Perception
  • Right Mindfulness, Attentiveness, and Concentration?
  • The best tao? (road, way, principle, speak, think)
  • The trick lies in not believing, yet believing
  • What is ‘the Tao’ actually?
  • Think what you believe? Believe what you think?
  • Yin Yang, Nature’s Hoodwink
  • Public Tantrums
  • Understanding Understanding
  • Wealth plays out in odd ways
  • Peaches and Pleasure
  • Looking Through the Looking Glass
  • Even a little progress is freedom from fear
  • Religion: The best placebo?
  • Correlation’s ‘Prime Directive’
  • The Cost of Compassion
  • Can you say what you think?
  • Grinding Out Correlations
  • “Do you believe in angels?”
  • The Amazonian ‘Taoists’
  • Is Enlightenment Something or ???
  • Family Life
  • Who’s a Sage?
  • The Gifts Given – Paid In Full
  • King Kiwi
  • Blowing with the sea
  • In praise of kale
  • Always be a beginner
  • It’s Like Magic!
  • How do we know what is true?
  • Am I Bored or Just Content?
  • Do Good Christians Make Good People?
  • PS
  • The Decider
  • Peeking in on Nature’s Hoodwink
  • How to Know You’re Happy
  • It Is Spooky
  • Of What Is The Taoist Model Symptomatic?
  • Is ‘Free Will’ the Only Option?
  • Butterflies have wings; we have minds
  • Mind in Body in Mind in Body…xin
  • Such Synergy
  • Where There’s Passion (fire), There’s Blindness (smoke)
  • Seeing the world ‘out there’
  • Schrödinger’s cat
  • Tai Chi Video
  • Life Is Struggle, Happiness Is Contentment
  • What’s With All The Hair?
  • Tao Views of the Dow
  • Biology’s Blinders: WYSIWYG
  • Those Who Speak Do Not Know. So, Why Speak?
  • Welcome to CenterTao.org 2.0!

Postscript

Here is 2022’s Postscript.

My 80-year-old mind continues poking deeper; however, I’ll not be updating this website any longer… There’s enough already… who needs more?

For those seriously interested, see Taoist Thought (which sells at cost). I intend to continue updating this book with my latest observations and revisions until I draw my last breath.

2004-2015 Forum Archive

Click here to browse a read-only archive of all discussion that took place on this site between 2004 and 2015; over 3000 posts!

Copyright © 2023 Carl Abbott · Log in