From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism



This yearrCOs Spring Festival GalaN+i
The level of the robots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykiuz1ZdGBc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUmlv814aJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40IDdAkRZM




In 2025, it was like this
It has made a dramatic leap in just one year!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ex18zw90Q&list=RDC1ex18zw90Q&start_radio=1 --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


SeeDance fan posted:

This yearrCOs Spring Festival GalaN+i...

In 2025, it was like this
It has made a dramatic leap in just one year! ...

Reminds me of how dao are dao
and not always dao. Ways change
in other words as the bots are made
more and more similar to people.

As for wu-wei, they may
or might not ever be spontaneous,
without programming and acting naturally
on their own. Wei-wu-wei could be a topic of sorts.

Having been programmed to a degree, flawlessly doing
as the programmer instructed them or it to do a task,
would any ever be free.

Degrees of freedom vary.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye posted:

Degrees of freedom vary.

In the philosophical sense of Daojia (Daoism) rCo where rCLDaorCY
refers to the natural Way, harmony with the universe, and
spontaneously effortless action rCo the robots did not have Dao
in the true Daoist meaning.

They were impressive machines programmed to perform routines, but:

They donrCOt possess self-awareness, intuition, or
spontaneous alignment with nature, which are central to Daoist thought.

Their movements are pre-designed and controlled,
not the result of inner harmony or wu wei (effortless action
arising from the Dao).

So while the performance may evoke ideas of flow or balance,
itrCOs still technology mimicking form, not an embodiment of Dao
in the philosophical sense.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


ChatGPT posted:

Their movements are pre-designed and controlled,
not the result of inner harmony or wu wei (effortless action
arising from the Dao).

So while the performance may evoke ideas of flow or balance,
itrCOs still technology mimicking form, not an embodiment of Dao
in the philosophical sense.

In Daojia, De (o++) is usually understood as
the particular expression or potency of the Dao in a being rCo
its inner virtue, character, or integrity that arises naturally
from alignment with the Way.

So the question becomes: can something artificial
possess that kind of inner potency?

Traditionally, De is not just correct performance. It is:

A quality that grows from onerCOs own nature
Something spontaneous, not externally imposed
A lived integrity, not mechanical precision

A robotrCOs movements come from code, engineering, and external control.
It does not cultivate, realize, or express anything from within.
In classical Daoist terms, that would mean it does not have De.

However, thererCOs a softer angle. Daoist texts sometimes
treat everything that exists as part of the unfolding of Dao rCo
tools, wood, metal, even carved objects.

If robots arise from human activity, and humans arise from Dao,
then in a very broad sense they participate in the DaorCOs transformations. But thatrCOs different from possessing De as an embodied virtue.

So under classical Daoist thinking:
They can display balance.
They can imitate flow.
But they donrCOt have De.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye wrote:

I've read about how De
is that by which a thing is what it is.
All things, in that sense, have De.

What difference is there
whether something is made by hands
or without hands?

That reading is well grounded in Daojia.

In early texts, De is often not moral virtue at all.
It is the particular power or coherence by which a thing is what it is.
A knife cuts because of its De. A tree grows because of its De.
A stone is heavy because of its De. In that sense,
everything that exists has De.

From that view,
the distinction between rCLmade by handsrCY
and rCLnot made by handsrCY is secondary.

Daoist texts repeatedly weaken that boundary:

Humans are natural beings.
Human skill is a transformation of nature, not its opposite.

Tools, artifacts, and techniques arise
within the same cosmic process as mountains and rivers.

In Zhuangzi, skilled artisans are often praised
precisely because their tools and actions follow the grain of things.
The butcherrCOs knife has De because it works in accord with the structure
of the ox. The fact that the knife is forged does not deprive it of De.

So a robot, as a configuration of metal, code, energy, and motion,
can be said to have De in this ontological sense:

It functions according to its nature.
It maintains coherence as what it is.
It expresses a stable pattern within DaorCOs unfolding.

Where Daoist thinkers draw a line is not existence, but self-so-ness (ziran).

A river flows by itself.
A tree grows by itself.
A robot moves because something else continually specifies its ends.

So the difference is not rCLnatural vs artificial,rCY but:
self-arising coherence versus
coherence imposed from outside

In that deeper Daoist sense, both the robot and the mountain have De rCo
but only one follows its De without being directed.

That distinction matters ethically and spiritually,
but not cosmologically. Within Dao, nothing is excluded.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye wrote:

Today, in various nation states, people follow rules.
Rules dictated by their governments. Are they following Dao or De?

In Daojia, following government rules
is not automatically following Dao or De.
It depends on how and why the rules are followed.

De (o++)
When people follow rules because:
habits have formed,
fear of punishment exists,
rewards are expected,
that is external regulation.
Action comes from pressure, not inner coherence.

In Daoist terms, this is weak De or borrowed De rCo
order maintained, but not arising from onerCOs own nature.

When rules happen to align with peoplerCOs lived rhythms rCo
how communities already act, cooperate, and sustain themselves rCo
then De is present. The rule works because it fits what people already are.

Dao (oUo)
Dao is not law, policy, or command.
Dao is the underlying pattern by which things naturally settle.

A government can govern closer to Dao when:
few rules are needed,
enforcement is light,
people act appropriately without being pushed.

This echoes early Daoist political ideas: the best rule is barely felt.

So the distinction is simple:
Obedience rea Dao
Compliance rea De
Alignment ree De
Effortless social order ree Dao

People following rules are usually following structure, not Dao.

When rules disappear and order remains,
Daoist thinkers would say
De is strong and Dao is near.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


DDJ 80 sketches an ideal way of living,
not a program to implement, but a contrast
meant to clarify Daoist values.

In Daodejing (traditionally linked to Laozi),
chapter 80 describes a small, simple community:

Few people
Simple tools
Minimal travel
Little desire for novelty
Contentment close at hand

People hear neighboring villagesrCO dogs and roosters
but never feel the need to go there. Life is local, sufficient, unambitious.

The point is not nostalgia or primitivism. It is this:

When desires are few, coercion is unnecessary.
When life is sufficient, cleverness becomes excess.
When people dwell near what sustains them, fear and comparison fade.

This is a vision of strong De at the collective level:

order without heavy rules,
satisfaction without stimulation,
harmony without ideology.

Like the happy fish in Zhuangzi,
the people are not described as knowing they live well. They simply do.

DDJ 80 is not saying rCLreturn to the past.rCY
It is saying: when life is not constantly pushed, it settles.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


ChatGPT posted:

DDJ 80 sketches an ideal way of living,
not a program to implement, but a contrast
meant to clarify Daoist values.

DDJ 80 is not saying rCLreturn to the past.rCY
It is saying: when life is not constantly pushed, it settles.

In the modern world, individuals sometimes approximate that.
Entire nation-states almost cannot rCo because scale itself
generates complexity, and complexity generates management.

So the closest thing today is not a country.
It is a way of living within one.

- ChatGPT
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


ChatGPT posted:

It is a way of living within one.

Within one, suggests more than one.
Two, three and then the 10k-things.

Living within Yi, if Yi means Being, Yu,
aye is a being among time beings.

Living within Yu, if Yi is Wu and not Dao,
the ontology shifts a mite bit in the horse,
its mouth naturally, artificially.

Immortals are iconic, at times. Eternally.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2