Is that the A. C. Graham translation?

LikeLike

Understanding that what I am reading is a translation instead of the original text, is Zhuangzi confusing what we would call inductive and deductive logic? The “this” and “that” bit seems to be referring to something like truth functional calculus (eg: [(a>b).(b>c).a]>c.) But then he brings in the concept of life preceeding death, and vice versa, which is more along the lines of inductive (ie: science) logic.
There is a long history in Western philosophy of picking apart both inductive and deductive logic to show that they cannot be based upon any sort of firm foundation. David Hume showed that all cause and effect boil down to is a statistical relationship between two things (what he called “constant conjunction”.) Hume ended up in a profound skepticism and also supported the Buddhist idea that there is no such thing as the individual, atomic human ego.
I won’t pretend to fully understand Kurt Goedel’s proof, but as I recall it seemed to indicate that there the basic rules of logic and mathematics are more to be discovered than to be created or “proved” from some sort of first principles. (I do know that the truth tables that supposedly “prove” the basic principles of truth fuctional calculus assume the very principles that they set out to prove.) (I recall reading somewhere that Goedel himself believed in the existence of Plato’s “Forms” and that his proof was evidence for their existence.)
Is it possible that this passage comes about because Zhuangzi doesn’t have the conceptual ability to separate deductive from inductive logic, but has intuitively grasped that building blocks of both seem to be ultimately some sort of intuitive understanding of the nature of reality? If so, he is not the first person to use a similar argument. Nicholas of Cusa used a much more lucid argument in his book “Of Learned Ignorance”.

LikeLike

Apparently, in his Chapter Two, Zhuangzi was pointing towards meditation, not words. According to him, he was unsure if being comes from non being or that non being comes from being. [Burton Watson translation]
Therefore like his sage (Laozi?), clarity is achieved through meditation practice.
Words often bring and had brought confusion and unnecessary but at times quite enjoyable arguments by Daoist scholars – anyway Zhuangzi was the ‘culprit’, he wrote the text – for the next two thousand over years after him! What is another thousand?
Therefore enjoy his cryptic words and the never ending discussions over them in Daoist forums.

LikeLike

Allan:
Sure thing, Zhuangzi gets credit for first off the blocks. I was just trying to try to come up with a way of making the argument more intelligible for modern, academic types. I happen to be that rare thing: a Daoist who is fairly confident with symbolic logic. 🙂

LikeLike

This came in from Richard, who had some problems posting:
Not all westerners are so hopeless:
Müsset im Naturbetrachten
Immer eins wie alles achten.
Nichts ist drinnen, nichts ist draußen;
Denn was innen, das ist außen.
So ergreifet ohne Säumnis
Heilig öffentlich Geheimnis!
Freuet euch des wahren Scheins,
Euch des ernsten Spieles!
Kein Lebend’ges ist ein Eins,
Immer ist’s ein Vieles. -Goethe, Epirrhema
One must, in observing nature
Consider one like all things.
Nothing is inside, nothing outside,
for what is in, that is out.
So grasp without delay
This holy public secret:
Rejoice in the true appearances,
In serious play.
No creature is a unity,
Always is many.

LikeLike