I don't think it neccesarily has to be a matter of assuming your pov is absolute. Assuming your pov is valid is enough. It's completely possible to acknowledge that you are not grasping the phenomenological content "as it is" but the exterior functional dimension.
Take all the roads. See where they go.
indeed, exactly my point. i was merely drawing attention to this very strange and interesting phenomenon, namely that a kind of 'relative absolute' come forward. the path assumes its own absoluteness by being the
individual/particularized/chosen path, even though as a path (an sich) it remains but one of many. i find this peculiar because its absoluteness comes not from its end, goal, or unifiable essence; but from there very
difference itself, or this singularity of the particular i was speaking of earlier. in the case of the choice of the individual, the unificationists' universal becomes a metaphysical voluntarism of the individual. of course, the individual is not absolutely autonomous regarding pov's and cultural background, but that's another jar of pickles.
to put some of it in a metaphor: all roads lead to Rome, not because at the end of each road lies Rome, but because they
are Rome
about your example from develomental psychology; i'm somewhat unsure about your point. it shows the strenght of scientific reduction yes. but in a context of cross-cultural phenomenon, its kind of akin to saying, speaking fromthe detached western (scientific) pov, this rock here is the same rock as when its over there lying in the midst of another culture. it is very likely a result from a developmental stage very closely related to the physical. my point is: the scientific reduction has
already discarded any cultural difference as non-essential.
whitin the scientific discourse, it is meaningless. you see, in this example, culture has been ruled out
a priori. a genuine cross-cultural phenomenon in this context would be the case where two different cultures have given this developmental 'shortcoming' of the child the same meaning/interpretation and expression therof
within their respective cultures.
but okay, let us follow this path now in order to arrive at a point i made in my earlier posts about the implosion of the pure form: assuming that there is this physical essence that lies at the basis of everything (ie. the physicalistic reduction). now we take the universalist's assumption therein, namely that at its very core, there is this 'matter/particle' which expresses the sought-after properties of the grand unified field theory. what we are left with here is this core, this singularity of pure sameness. this is an unimaginable, dare i say even impossible, entity, that is in a static state of being infinitly collapsed unto itself. why? given that it is the very core of the universal, there cannot be anything that keeps any (non-existant; since it is the very core of sameness) constituents apart. it is infinitely dense. and now comes the pickle: given as such it cannot be in
any relation with anything that constitutes any difference towards it at all. it is completely isolated by the very nature of its universality. i don't think i have to tell you how paradoxal that last sentence is. but its one of the most interesting paradoxes of existence, together with something/nothing and being/non-being
I'll have to rephrase my previous post. In a broad sense the Taoist ontology is similar to Platonic ontologies. They are both organized into hierarchies where higher levels give forward the following lower level.
the problem is that when you employ such a broad category to determine sameness, the nomer tends becomes rather close to a moot point (at least, insofar as sharp research into a field goes). i mean, using such a broad category Platonism is similar to both Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well. i do understand why you do that though, you are seeking out the universalities in each, or at least, those universalities insofar as they correspond to your pov regarding them. but this is your very
in-dividu-ality really (to stress its latin root, meaning 'indivisible'). and so we come full circle with that above again (to remain within the spirit of the OP). my general point in all these posts here has been an emphasizing of a fundamental, a radical difference. and this is certainly not a bad thing, or heaven forbid, a shortcoming (lol), on the part of existence!
Originally Posted by Tao Te Ching
From one comes two, from two comes three, from three comes ten thousand things
It's a combinatorial enumaration of masculine, feminine, and masculine-feminine whole.
im missing one and three there
(or three and ten thousand things, depending on ones interpretation)
(not that i myself know what these should be)
as far as the concept of Tian goes; i'm afraid 'ill have to disappoint. though i certainly will do so at one point, as of yet it is a study i have yet to embark upon before being able to say anything about it. i really don't feel like i have enough expertise to make any definitive statements about it; which is, i feel, a matter of respect. the wikipedia page should make clear how many different meanings the word has. from it, it should also be clear that 'a concept', or conceptuality itself, is conceptualized differently in western and eastern philosophy. for example; (
very, very tentatively) ~there appears to be at least some exceedinly strange intertwining of sorts with their 'idea' of the 'face' (Lian 臉) (which is perhaps somewhat more straightforward in confucianism); but this is such a mighty strange territory, really.
just take these; i mean, in western philosophy, any of these meanings have a complete philosophical field of their own!
wikipedia said:
The Chinese philosopher Feng Youlan differentiates five different meanings of tian in early Chinese writings:
(1) A material or physical T'ien or sky, that is, the T'ien often spoken of in apposition to earth, as in the common phrase which refers to the physical universe as 'Heaven and Earth' (T'ien Ti 天地).
(2) A ruling or presiding T'ien, that is, one such as is meant in the phrase, 'Imperial Heaven Supreme Emperor' (Huang T'ien Shang Ti), in which anthropomorphic T'ien and Ti are signified.
(3) A fatalistic T'ien, equivalent to the concept of Fate (ming 命), a term applied to all those events in human life over which man himself has no control. This is the T'ien Mencius refers to when he says: "As to the accomplishment of a great deed, that is with T'ien" ([Mencius], Ib, 14).
(4) A naturalistic T'ien, that is, one equivalent to the English word Nature. This is the sort of T'ien described in the 'Discussion on T'ien' in the [Hsün Tzǔ] (ch. 17).
(5) An ethical T'ien, that is, one having a moral principle and which is the highest primordial principle of the universe. This is the sort of T'ien which the [Chung Yung] (Doctrine of the Mean) refers to in its opening sentence when it says: "What T'ien confers (on man) is called his nature." (1952:31)
)