tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post7654117274514930567..comments2023-10-08T05:13:18.117-07:00Comments on wikifray: Daoism 101; The Early History of QiWikiFrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07420433870074751645noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post-45020916631973436242007-04-09T06:40:00.000-07:002007-04-09T06:40:00.000-07:00More or less waht I was getting at, Dawn. Seems m...More or less waht I was getting at, Dawn. Seems more observational, but less adversarial than western philosophical tradition. Progress (for well or ill) needs a little of both, methinks. But 75% of what I know about Daoism, I just read in august's two posts, so grains of salt and all.<BR/><BR/>I'm unqualified to mock string theory, but I'm so tempted--on a meta level, it looks like they're just adding parameters until they can get stuff to fit...maybe. (In the meat world, I'm about equal parts doofus and wiseass.)<BR/><BR/>I want to think more about Daoism and thermodynamics though. I still like those parallels, and I'm sure I can force them into line if I try hard enough.<BR/><BR/>KKeifushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287358319899471490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post-31646357172760898562007-04-09T01:36:00.000-07:002007-04-09T01:36:00.000-07:00I'm enjoying this series immensely.Is it common to...I'm enjoying this series immensely.<BR/><BR/>Is it common to spell Daoism with a D now? It certainly makes sense.<BR/><BR/>At a glance, your first two (?) pieces in the series are almost completely "clean" mechanically and would appeal to editors on that basis alone (believe it). You should consider trying to get the series published in print or elsewhere online.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post-72682989428594676712007-04-08T18:10:00.000-07:002007-04-08T18:10:00.000-07:00What I've always found interesting about Daoism is...What I've always found interesting about Daoism is the degree to which it seems based on careful observation of the natural world (what keifus was getting at?). I'm sure that Judeochristian edicts are based on genuine attempts to resolve social ills, but their connection to the real world is much more obscure.<BR/><BR/>Daoism probably holds up for the same reason Traditional Chinese Medicine does: the five humours and the winds and all that seem nutty to someone who has the most basic knowledge of anatomy, but there's 5000 years of trial and error behind it, so many of the treatments appear to work.<BR/><BR/>The idea that moral/immoral actions change the world on the level of matter is one the New Age has embraced. Conspiracy theorists seem especially fond of this one.<BR/><BR/>I see the benefit of observing causal relationships and interconnectedness in one's immediate circumstances. I've always liked the concept of seeing the "seeds" of things. Does that come from Daoism?<BR/><BR/>I look forward to the next installment.Dawn Coyotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878588090733942606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post-70562453859577061862007-04-08T15:26:00.000-07:002007-04-08T15:26:00.000-07:00Keif,Sorry slow to respond, and I'm afraid I'm not...Keif,<BR/><BR/>Sorry slow to respond, and I'm afraid I'm not really going to be able to answer your questions Your first one is important, but also difficult to answer without dodging a number of huge semantic traps, and I lack the constitution at the moment (big Easter meal). <BR/><BR/>Qi and ether -- yeah, I think there might be a parallel. Important caveat -- seeing the world in terms of qi did fascilitate observation and experiment, but not experiments designed to test the notion of qi. It was really never expressed in any kind of falsifiable way, unlike ether (but perhaps like string theory? )(joke.) (We'd get along well in the meat world, I think.)<BR/><BR/>Equilibrium I think is more likely to be result of semantic fuzziness than actual parallels. Indeed -- there is no notion of a "conservation of qi" -- it's being produced constantly, and it <I>does</I> get out of balance.augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12042512777302374341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4760967123218143470.post-17377033734485173722007-04-06T08:23:00.000-07:002007-04-06T08:23:00.000-07:00I keep going back to scientific thought, here. A...I keep going back to scientific thought, here. An open question: has science <I>always</I> started out with equivalent moral and natural philosophies? <BR/><BR/>Daoist philosophy seems a great deal more compatible with modern scientific pursuit than, say, Christianity, which stuck God as a miraculous causative agent (although I still get a kick of reading about Roger Bacon and the like trying to push theology and science together). Daoism, as you describe it, seems it would let early thinkers go after the how without having to call the (divine) why into question so much. I may be wrong.<BR/><BR/>You're really sparking a lot of curiousity regarding the Chinese and the (nearly contemporaneous) Greek philosophers. I think the latter <I>may</I> have had better handle on methods of inquiry (possibly a good reason that the Renaissance scientists went in for the Hermeticism and so forth), but<BR/>am I ever feeling just how spotty my history is just now. <BR/><BR/>Daoism seems to get to some late-day points in natural philosophy quite easily, however, which is neat. Energy was a challenging animal for thinkers to get their minds around in the nineteenth century. A big step was conceiving of a qi-like ether. (I used to ignorantly tease a colleague of mine when he'd get going on modern cosmology. "Quantum foam, it's the new ether," I'd joke, to no one's real amusement.) The concept of equilibrium is another thing that's mighty important in the understanding of thermodynamics.Keifushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287358319899471490noreply@blogger.com