Nick,
By all means, keep running around in circles. I’m sure that your “higher” levels will keep you occupied forever.
jeffl,
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems to me that Chuang Tzu wasn’t talking about expressing understanding, but having understanding. A subtle but perhaps important difference. A movement toward greater understanding? I guess I’d need an explanation of what that means.
Your last paragraph is a bit cryptic. What two ‘modes’ of knowing are you suggesting?
Yep JT, you just put Jesus and Socrates in their place for their asserted importance of knowing. Of course if I were a betting man I’d place a sizeable sum on them as opposed to the wisdom of Tentative. But then again, I am not a god so prone to error.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
No problem jeffl, we just don’t have the same perspective. Human symbology in communication just doesn’t appear to me as a one to one, certified relationship.
I see a number of inherent flaws/faults, which are just as often detrimental, and more often, obfuscating and misleading.
[quote=“The book of Chuang Tzu
“Broken Suitcasesâ€
400-300 BCE”]
In the same way, the versatility needed to produce rhetoric, to plot and scheme, spread rumours and debate pointlessly, to dust off arguments and seek apparent agreement, is also considerable, but the result is that the people are confused.
[/quote]
This political exercise is an expression of a lack of understanding; someone uses words to achieve a personal end and, whether or not the goal is achieved, there is ‘colateral damage.’
[quote=“The book of Chuang Tzu
“Broken Suitcasesâ€
400-300 BCE”]
So everything under heaven is in a state of distress, all because of the pursuit of knowledge. Everything in the world knows how to seek for knowledge they do not have, but do not know how to find what they already know. Everything in the world knows how to condemn what they dislike, but do not know how to condemn what they have which is wrong. This is what causes such immense confusion. It is as if the brightness of the sun and moon had been eclipsed above, while down below the hills and streams have lost their power, as though the natural flow of the four seasons had been broken. There is no humble insect, not even any plant, that has not lost its innate nature. This is the consequence for the world of seeking after knowledge.
[/quote]
Every self is now running to stand still; heaven is lost. Clearly, every humble insect and even any plant has not lost its innate nature; the ego self’s serch for knowledge has destroyed a laminar flow of spirit, there is no shekhienah flow, the greater mandala is lost. There is a proliferation of selves, a ‘foama-pleroma.’
[quote=“The book of Chuang Tzu
“Broken Suitcasesâ€
400-300 BCE”]
From the Three Dynasties down to the present day it has been like this. The good and honest people are ignored, while spineless flatterers are advanced. The quiet and calm of actionless action is cast aside and pleasure is taken in argument. It is this nonsense which has caused such confusion for everything under heaven.
[/quote]
So maybe we’re both wrong? It kinda looks like he’s talking about an expression of a lack of understanding. I tried talking about spirituality and consciousness at family dinners, since the way the brain works to produce conscious experience is such a fecund notion wrt faith generally; my nephew took debate courses so that he could argue against me more effectively.
Well, in the partcular case of my nephew; we (he and i) could move toward a greater understanding by discussing how truth and a familiarity with the facts is more likely to win an argument than is any fancy technique. Wrt politics generally, there appears to be a misogynist and patriarchal secret structure in place, and inspite of that i can clearly perceive an innate matriarchal political structure present in human relationships. To facilitate a movement toward greater understanding is to facilitate an expression of the feminine aspect; ‘the way things ought to be’ in order to achieve laminar spiritual flow, loss of ego, heaven inside and out.
That would be knowing conditionally and the knowing of knowledge.
Understanding requires knowledge, that’s a given; and it can be of the two sorts. One puts you inside a conscious being iff it’s sufficient, the other makes you a conscious being.
To the extent that it fails certification it can be judged; mostly an issue of perspective, as you say, and so understandable (forgivable, for a time); but also an issue of trust, honesty, commitment, intestinal fortitude, yadda yadda.
From my perspective it looks like these flaws/faults have been turned to advantage, in the longest term.
You may want to consider Spinoza and his concept of the three types of knowledge. It seems that Chuang Tzu is closer to Spinoza’s #3. I just don’t believe that #3 requires abandoning 1 and 2. It just means that we would need an alignment of our being we do not have to retain the human perspective the alignment would provide…
Interestiing.
When i say ‘iff it’s sufficient,’ in reference to proceedural knowledge, i think i’m trying to say ‘from an adiquate idea… to an adequate knowledge…’ In other words, i think Spinozas’ knowledge #3 is my knowledge #1 without the impedance of deluded knowledge #2. I think Chuang Tzu is talking about deluded knowledge #2 (when discussing the ten thousand things.)
Hi jeffl,
Apologies for not posting back sooner.
There is always a chance that I could be wrong. 
My take is that it was indeed a ‘lack of understanding’ he was speaking of, but with a subtle distinction. The lack of understanding wasn’t incapacity, but the deliberate letting ego hold sway. It seems to me that his complaint was allowing external knowledge to cloud obvious reality, the reality within…
think about it like this …chuang tzu lived 2300 years ago… when he says the whole world …he means his whole world …he actually had no idea of the whole world and its inhabitants …he talks of his time and culture 2300 years ago…chinese feudal culture and u seem to think it applys to all the rest of time and to all cultures? …he claims that there is no humble insect or plant that has not lost its innate nature due to and as a conseqeunce of the world seeking knowledge ? i strongly disagree… due to knowledge these innate natures are now understood with more clarity… do birds fly higher when hunted by bows … i have hunted and i can say with knowledge this is untrue…
his whole saying is based on what he knows and understands ,of his time …of his world …of his people… a world of limited information on wich he based his saying …and he says that the pursuit of knowledge and discussion of truths is a waste of time ,that it causes confusion and that the action of actionless action ,wich we term apathy… is preferable .this is the saying of those who dislike change and seek not to understand new things because they themselves cannot fathom the arguments
and to u i say …we!!! .“we” know everything ! “we” know it all ?.. u make a claim on behalf of us all …we do not know everything at all …we r not even close …do u think u would find anyone here if u were correct ?.. u may think u know it all but like tzu ur perspectives and thoughts r limited by ur knowledge …his is based on his time 2300 years ago his people his society ,and most importantly his perceptions of them .and as profound as u think they are they do no longer apply nor have relavence …i beleive it is merley a mans abstract thoughts of the times and place where he lived and how he perceived things … and his discontent …of social change …it does not make it correct or applicable to all peoples of the earth …or especially profound … especially today …in this time …
Hello quantum,
Welcome to ILP.
Your post isn’t quite clear. I do understand that Chuang Tzu lived 2300 years ago, and that he obviously only knew the world of that time. However, the quotation I used was adressing ideas that have no time period, even if the examples he used seem foreign to you. You characterize actionless action as apathy, and this is a common misperception. I would suggest perhaps a bit more study of Tao Te Ching would aid your understanding. I believe further investigation would show you that Way making understands and embraces change and understanding each new thing is paramount. That you see actionless action as the saying of those who cannot fathom arguments really needs closer examination on your part.
I’ll leave a response to the rest of your post until another time. I suspect you would see your post a bit differently with a bit better understanding of Chuang Tzu’s writings as they reflect Tao Te Ching.
Quanzi?
Was he even Chinese? LOL.
Did he even live in the Warring States period? LOL.
Perhaps he was just the butterfly of immortality, taking a taste of a period and waxing cynically about the all knowing human who thinks they see what they see, and justify the unjustifiable by biting their own teeth.
LMAO.
Apathy? LOL. Oh that’s good. Yes, to know in not knowing and allow the watercourse flow is most certainly apathetic, so naturally apathetic …
LOL.
Now Mas,
A little patience… 
Hey old dog, after all the banter and whipped cream, how many knowing of not knowing chapters are there anyway? I used chp 71 in another thread but that is just one of many. Talk to me venerable one. Enlighten this poor sufferer.
Chapters of what?
Books long forgotten?
Laosi? Quanzi? Liehzi? Li po? Tung?
Who are we on about and which book?
Am I being impatient, or am I just patiently awaiting the realisation with symbology in the interim?
You’ve gone off your medications again, haven’t you? You know what the doctor said last time…
Tao Te Ching - only because it will be the most widely read. Time to start pre-loading so we can be experts… 
OOOOOOOOOOOohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … that little book.
It weighs in with a paltry eighty one chapters, words mostly, symbols, characters, calligraphs …
Meds? But uncy tentative, the Aretran makes me all woooooosie. Besides, the doc said I’m only a partial psychopath, everything else is bad perception … 
For reference, I’ve always enjoyed chapter two, to wit:
[i]When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.
Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low oppose each other.
Fore and aft follow each other.
Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word.
Things come her way and she does not stop them;
things leave and she lets them go.
She has without possessing,
and acts without any expectations.
When her work is done, she take no credit.
That is why it will last forever.[/i]
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart’s knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.
And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, “I have found the truth,” but rather, “I have found a truth.”
Say not, “I have found the path of the soul.” Say rather, “I have met the soul walking upon my path.”
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals.
~ On Self-Knowledge, Kahlil Gibran
A
Hi Mas,
Yes. Mutually entailing opposites. If one forgets or ignores this, then paradox is born. But humans have great difficulty accepting process, do they not? We cut the naming into stone and then collect the stones…
I’ve always been amused at the statement, “I don’t know if I’m coming or going.” The answer is too simple and too obvious: Both, and at the same time. So is everything and everyone else…
But that’s apathy tentative!!!
If stone collecting is what every other humans does, then you are just lazy for not picking up your share.
What audacity to proclaim that we should allow ourselves to be part of the process!!!
I may have to report you as a heretic and blasphemer …
Mas rejoins:
I suppose I should admit my guilt. 
I’m not seeking out hidden meanings, hidden treasures, or &$%@# hidden remotes. It is true. I go about my day, taking each thing as it comes, do the best with it with as little interference as possible. I see the stones, and I have a small collection, but I avoid picking them up whenever possible. A shameful apathetic creature… 
I’d be honored. Burn me at the stake if you must, but I’ll never recant: I hate American Idol!