Hebrews: Good or Evil?

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
An entity is a “thing” - something that has properties, something that can be a subject or a predicate. That’s all. Like, my desk is an entity.
Nor is the Tao a deity.A philosophical one.Some god-claims can be. cf. magellan01 and “Prime Mover”. But no, I’m not saying it can’t be a scientific claim, I’m saying I’m not making it as one.I was the one that cl;aimed an “active entity”, which you quoted. So pardon my confusion. Once again - The Tao is not a deity. To call it such is not the common sense definition .I said nothing about the whole of creation - a system can be greater than the sum of its parts and still fall under the whole of creation, as long as all the connections are also real ones. I didn’t call you one. I asked to be extended the same courtesy I give.
*I *wasn’t the one who singled out a term (that wasn’t directed at me) with a sarcastic smiley. You’re the one who started this dialogue, not me.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree that the Tao is no diety. I think that by the term you only mean a transendental diety; but that isn’t the sole meaning of the term - a diety may be immanent as well.

Moreover, whether of not the Tao is a “diety”, there is no question that Taoists embrace mysticism. A “philosophic” claim that some elements of culture have an “active” existence greater than the sum of its parts strikes me, coyness about what exactly you are claiming aside, as basically mystical and in a manner similar to Taoism, only as it were writ small - and I apologize is so saying is “discourteous”.

If I used a “sarcastic smiley”, it was over the use of a neologism as if it was a generally understood term, in order to seek an explaination for it.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I disagree that the Tao is no diety. I think that by the term you only mean a transendental diety; but that isn’t the sole meaning of the term - a diety may be immanent as well.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly the wiki article I linked to doesn’t make this distinction. And no, I wouldn’t class the Tao as immanent deity. Immanence, yes, sure, but not deity. And please learn to spell the word.
[QUOTE=Malthus]

Moreover, whether of not the Tao is a “diety”, there is no question that Taoists embrace mysticism.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but I’ve no problem with mysticism. Had mystic experiences myself. I just believe you’re mischaracterising my idea of emergent extelligence by labelling it as mystic. I’m not suggesting the EE is something to be communed with or directly experienced.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
A “philosophic” claim that some elements of culture have an “active” existence greater than the sum of its parts strikes me, coyness about what exactly you are claiming aside,
[/QUOTE]
I’m not being coy, I’ve been quite specific in what I’m claiming.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
as basically mystical and in a manner similar to Taoism, only as it were writ small - and I apologize is so saying is “discourteous”.
[/QUOTE]
Labelling my beliefs as “not atheist” is where the discourtesy comes in. I’ve made no mention of theistic entities and kept all my descriptives grounded in physical process. How you can read “mysticism” into that is incomprehensible to me.
[QUOTE=Malthus]

If I used a “sarcastic smiley”, it was over the use of a neologism as if it was a generally understood term, in order to seek an explaination for it.
[/QUOTE]

The :dubious: is inherently sarcastic, no need for scare quotes. And you could have gotten a succinct explanation by asking, without the :dubious: . Or just googled.

[Lust4Life]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I’m still unclear as to the point of all this.

Some cherrypicked parts of the OT display laws, customs and attitudes that we today find bad. So?
[/QUOTE]

Well I for one was rather shocked to find out that the Hebrews fought in wars several thousand years ago in the otherwise peace and harmony loving ME.
There we have the Assyrians and the Egyptians toking up at free music festivals and wearing flowers in their hair when along come the Jews.

Theres always one got to spoil things for all of the others.

Fucking Eaters…yeah and Drinkers too!

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Certainly the wiki article I linked to doesn’t make this distinction. And no, I wouldn’t class the Tao as immanent deity. Immanence, yes, sure, but not deity. And please learn to spell the word.
[/quote]

Amusing snark, considering that most people regard using a Wiki definition as if it was an argument to be a far, far stupider thing than mis-spelling “deity”.

Sure, but I’ve no problem with mysticism. Had mystic experiences myself. I just believe you’re mischaracterising my idea of emergent extelligence by labelling it as mystic. I’m not suggesting the EE is something to be communed with or directly experienced.

So, how does it affect people?

I’m not being coy, I’ve been quite specific in what I’m claiming.

I think you are being coy - all that guff about making a philosophic claim, ra-ra.

Labelling my beliefs as “not atheist” is where the discourtesy comes in. I’ve made no mention of theistic entities and kept all my descriptives grounded in physical process. How you can read “mysticism” into that is incomprehensible to me.

If you make claims about invisible entities that nonetheless have an existence greater than the sum of their parts, be prepared for some “discourtesy”. The fault lies not in others.

The :dubious: is inherently sarcastic, no need for scare quotes. And you could have gotten a succinct explanation by asking, without the :dubious: . Or just googled.

If you use odd neologisms as if they were words, it would be kinder to your blood pressure to define 'em in advance rather than blowing a gasket over a smiliey used in the Pit. :rolleyes:

[Polerius]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
What does the phrase “above all people” imply? That God likes Jews more? That Jews are better? The OT conclusively demonstrates that this is not what is meant - after all, much of the OT consists of God punishing the Jews for failing to live up to their covenant with God. It sure isn’t an unbroken series of God preferring Jews to other people - it is much more consistent with the notion that Jews are “special” in that they have special obligations. They are not considered a “chosen people” in the sense that (say) the Nazis considered Aryans.

[/QUOTE]

In a GD thread today, I found this letter by Einstein , and if I read it correctly, it shows he thought that “chosen” meant privileged or better, as opposed to “having special obligations”.

[QUOTE=Einstein]
And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. **Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.
**
[/QUOTE]

So, while he rejects that the Jewish people are chosen, it seems pretty clear that the interpretation of “chosen” that he uses is “better” or “privileged”

[FinnAgain]

Keep in mind, too, that Einstein was a German Jew who had his books burned by the Nazis and who, presumably, had much of his outlook influenced by that period in his life. That he would respond to the word “chosen” as it was often used to demonize Jews at that time is, frankly, unsurprising. In context, that he would be addressing some of the popular memes of his age isn’t that noteworthy. In addition, he may very well have been talking about, for instance, how he didn’t believe that a personal God had “chosen” the Jews to bear the burden of The Law.

In any case, it’s not really all that relevant, although Einstein of course always serves as a flashy example. The phrase “the chosen people” refers, almost exclusively in a modern context, to being chosen to receive God’s word. Even in ancient times, the dynamic of it being a burden was quite clear.

All that being said, what exactly are you getting at?
You’ve been told several times that the vast majority of modern Jewish theologians simply do not cast the phrase in terms of superiority, but obligation. What is your point, other than that some can/could/have interpreted it in a non-standard manner?

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Amusing snark, considering that most people regard using a Wiki definition as if it was an argument to be a far, far stupider thing than mis-spelling “deity”.
[/QUOTE]
You have a factual correction to make to the article, or is argumentum ad populum your only recourse?
[QUOTE=Malthus]

So, how does it affect people?

[/QUOTE]
By being the knowledge base for their own thoughts. This is not the same as direct experience, as the whole is at once too nebulous and too dispersed to be communed with. Think of it as a cloud of facts.

I think you are being coy - all that guff about making a philosophic claim, ra-ra.

Which is a specific claim.

If you make claims about invisible entities that nonetheless have an existence greater than the sum of their parts, be prepared for some “discourtesy”. The fault lies not in others.

Where did I say it was invisible? I need only open a Bible or turn on a TV or open a browser and Whoomp! there it is, visible as anything. You’re reading between lines that don’t actually exist, I think.

If you use odd neologisms as if they were words, it would be kinder to your blood pressure to define 'em in advance rather than blowing a gasket over a smiliey used in the Pit. :rolleyes:

There’s nothing about being a neologism that stops it from being a real word, but forgive me if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and considered the word wasn’t such a neologism to bunch of swots like us. I mean, it featured in a series of science popularisations by Terry Pratchett, FFS. And it’s more than 10 years old & has its own Wikipedia page. Would you be raising eyebrows if I used the terms “viral marketing”, “disneyfication” or “jam tomorrow”? I mean, that last was Lewis fucking Carroll, that’s an odd take on neologism, don’tcha think?

And no, I take offense at the tone because that’s obviously directed at me, personally, and that’s because your just a worthless shit who wasn’t even the person I was addressing, and yet you stuck your nose in anyway. Idiot cunt.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=Polerius]
In a GD thread today, I found this letter by Einstein , and if I read it correctly, it shows he thought that “chosen” meant privileged or better, as opposed to “having special obligations”.
So, while he rejects that the Jewish people are chosen, it seems pretty clear that the interpretation of “chosen” that he uses is “better” or “privileged”
[/QUOTE]

Please note the context, and how he defines “privilege”:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

[Emphasis added]

So, in this letter Einstien is clearly not claiming that anyone believes Jews as people are “better” in the way that (say) Nazis claimed superiority for “Aryans”, but rather that Jews, such as the friend he was writing to, claim the “privilege” of “monotheism”.

In short, he is rejecting the Biblical notions of special-ness root and branch - the assumption of a “chosen people” as discussed above - which he is considering a “privilege”. The thesis is contained in the last sentence:

And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

It is this that is his target - the “special” or “unique” nature of the religion, and consequently, the assumption that Jews are “special” because under their religion (which he finds no different from or better than any other) they claim a special status, monotheism, a “monopolization” of god-hood. He notes that this monopoly has not made them “better” and indeed that assertion of such a monopoly is a “self-deception” which impedes his friend’s “moral efforts”.

I see nothing in this letter to support tyhe notion that “the chosen people” means anything other than “having special obligations” - that’s pretty well exactly what he finds a problem - he doesn’t think this special “privilege” of monotheism either has any reality to it or makes anyone morally better as individuals.

Which is a far cry from asserting that “the chosen people” is intended by Jews to mean “better than other humans”. I’m quite certain that a proposition as absurd as that would be quickly and condignly rejected by Einstien, who, as can be seen, was in fact making a rather more subtle philosophical point.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

And no, I take offense at the tone because that’s obviously directed at me, personally, and that’s because your just a worthless shit who wasn’t even the person I was addressing, and yet you stuck your nose in anyway. Idiot cunt.
[/QUOTE]

Awww. Now you are breaking my heart.

[FinnAgain]

No no, “now your breaking my heart”.

Seriously though, you had the nerve to respond to a post made on a public message board, even though you weren’t the person to whom it was addressed. And you even, on the SDMB of all places, expressed disagreement and that your opponent was playing rhetorical games. And in a forum as delicate and polite as this, used a smiley!

True cuntish idiocy.

[MrDibble]

“Playing rhetorical games”? I’d say it was Malthus who was doing the Semantic Shuffle.

That’s where you debate endlessly about the meaning of words but never back up your own utterances - like having a personal definition of deity that you can apply where you like. But *I *have to explain every word I use. Probably before long he’ll be nitpicking my use of “is”, 'cos you know the theists have the whole “I AM” thing cornered, so if I use the verb “to be” in any form, I’m being “mystical”.

[Malthus]

Meh, it’s not worth continuing.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Meh, it’s not worth continuing.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I disagree that the Tao is no diety. I think that by the term you only mean a transendental diety; but that isn’t the sole meaning of the term - a diety may be immanent as well.

[/QUOTE]

I am a Taoist. (hence the nick)

There’s actually many schools of thought in Taoism. See Taoism is a set of practices to make peace with daily earthly life. Practices such as living simply, and using action without action. Some branches of Taoism have deities, and some do not. Generally it’s left up to the follower to pick a branch.

The word Tao it’s self is actually just Chinese word for “way”. It isn’t a deity, it isn’t anything. It’s nothing. It’s the uncarved block. It’s free to be anything you need it for.

So I guess it could be deity if you need it to be, but for those that see it as more a philosophy, or a advice system it isn’t a deity. Although it does help you to see nature, life, the universe, ect as godlike in it’s beauty.

I should point out I suck at Taoism so far, especially the actioin without action part. Plus “the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao”.

I have to ask though. Why is Taoism relevant to Hebrews? Moses decide he wanted some Chinese takeout?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Ummm. According to the Old Testament, God killed most of humanity. And cursed all of humanity with suffering for the crime of disobedience. And so on. The Greeks and Romans were nowhere near as bad; they didn’t have the power or the inclination.

Even if you restrict judgement to the actions attributed to humans, behavior like killing everything but the virgin girls and taking them as sex slaves is something that the Romans or Greeks would have cheerfully done. If the Greeks/Romans were worse, it wasn’t by any huge margin. No doubt they did more damage, but they were also much more powerful.

I doubt that. Oh, I’m sure that there would still be religion, but as we see all over the world, there’s all sorts of religions that don’t resemble Judaism or Christianity very much. For example, without Judaism and it’s offspring religions, the dominant religions might have been polytheistic, and therefore probably less inclined to think that everyone else is worshipping a false god or demon. Or, the religions that became dominant could have been less aggressively evangelical, less prone to believe that if you don’t worship the one true god the one right way you’ll suffer forever; and therefore, have been less aggressive and ruthless.

The Abrahamic religions are exceptionally nasty as religions go. Not the very worst, but up there. Their underlying worldview makes them so. That’s why people who take them seriously tend to inflict suffering, tyranny and death ( they themselves may be either evil, stupid, crazy, or a mix ). And why in more civilized countries, trying to follow the OT too closely will get you tossed in prison.

That being said, in ancient times, pretty much everyone was, by comparison to modern people, evil. It’s called progress. The problem it, the OT is a survival from a more barbaric time that far too many people think should be a guide to modern behavior. People don’t typically dig up multi-millennia old secular laws are try to claim that they should be resurrected.

As for the OP’s apparent anti-Semitism, I’d recommend that she find some more modern and interesting bigotry. Something in keeping with the nerdesque nature of this board, like a rant about how aliens are evil and should be killed, or a claim for the moral righteousness of enslaving robots. Much more fun to argue about than yet another claim about the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world or whatever.
[/QUOTE]

I found your later posts, rather um off putting, but this post right here is a good one!

Seriously, it’s only with in the last few decades that we stopped segregating, and suppressing by skin color, less then 200 years since the end of slavery. We forget our enlightening isn’t the obvious thing it seems now.

We also need to remember someday we’ll prolly seem just as brutal. There’s alot of things in our age future generations may change and scorn us as savages for. Things like war, poverty, lack of medical care, the environment, ect.

I bet Medicine will be a big one “they actually used to cute people open for surgery and drug them asleep?” “why didn’t they just a virus to deactivate cancer cells like we do now?” “the doctor examined your prostate by putting his what! in your what!? o.O”

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=The Tao’s Revenge]
I am a Taoist. (hence the nick)

There’s actually many schools of thought in Taoism. See Taoism is a set of practices to make peace with daily earthly life. Practices such as living simply, and using action without action. Some branches of Taoism have deities, and some do not. Generally it’s left up to the follower to pick a branch.

The word Tao it’s self is actually just Chinese word for “way”. It isn’t a deity, it isn’t anything. It’s nothing. It’s the uncarved block. It’s free to be anything you need it for.

So I guess it could be deity if you need it to be, but for those that see it as more a philosophy, or a advice system it isn’t a deity. Although it does help you to see nature, life, the universe, ect as godlike in it’s beauty.

I should point out I suck at Taoism so far, especially the actioin without action part. Plus “the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao”.

I have to ask though. Why is Taoism relevant to Hebrews? Moses decide he wanted some Chinese takeout?
[/QUOTE]

The Tao was, at least by the Chinese philosophers Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, thought to be more than that.

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao - certainly; that doesn’t mean that the Tao is meaningless or non-existant, simply that the action of describing it is itself an impossibility.

I disagree that the Tao literally means “nothing”, or “whatever you want”.

The Daodejing teaches that humans cannot fathom the Dao, because any name we give to it cannot capture it. It is beyond what we can conceive (ch.1). Those who wu wei may become one with it and thus “obtain the dao.” Wu wei is a difficult notion to translate. Yet, it is generally agreed that the traditional rendering of it as “nonaction” or “no action” is incorrect. Those who wu wei do act. Daoism is not a philosophy of “doing nothing.” Wu wei means something like “act naturally,” “effortless action,” or “nonwillful action.” The point is that there is no need for human tampering with the flow of reality. Wu wei should be our way of life, because the dao always benefits, it does not harm (ch. 81) The way of heaven (dao of tian) is always on the side of good (ch. 79) and virtue (de) comes forth from the dao alone (ch. 21). What causes this natural embedding of good and benefit in the dao is vague and elusive (ch. 35), not even the sages understand it (ch. 76). But the world is a reality that is filled with spiritual force, just as a sacred image used in religious ritual might be (ch. 29). The dao occupies the place in reality that is analogous to the part of a family’s house set aside for the altar for venerating the ancestors and gods (the ao of the house, ch. 62). When we think that life’s occurrences seem unfair (a human discrimination), we should remember that heaven’s (tian) net misses nothing, it leaves nothing undone (ch. 37)

Daoist Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Tao is both the “way” and the embodiment of reality - it is the immanent diety (that is, it is that part of the universe that, permiating the whole, seeks “virtue” and is worthy of awe and worship). It cannot be defined, but it is certainly not “nothing”. “Nothing” is itself a definition!

The first verse of the Lao Tzu has been translated many times. I like this one:

A dao that can be defined,
is not the eternal Dao;
concepts that can be conceived,
are not eternal concepts!
Inconceivable is Heaven’s and Earth’s origin,
conceivable is the myriad things’ mother.

Therefore, always without desire,
so see its mystery;
ever with desire,
so see its surface.

These two: together emerging,
yet differing in names —
together they are called mysterious.
The mystery of mysteries —
the Gate to all Mysteries.

There are plenty more here: Tao Te Ching (175 translations of the first chapter)

The first line is often quoted (as in “the tao that can be named …”), but the significance is in the last verse - that names, or definitions, and the nameless are both in a way the same, and mysterious; that lack of desire and desire are both necessary and that the universe is both inconceivable and conceivable …

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
The Tao was, at least by the Chinese philosophers Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, thought to be more than that.

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao - certainly; that doesn’t mean that the Tao is meaningless or non-existant, simply that the action of describing it is itself an impossibility.

I disagree that the Tao literally means “nothing”, or “whatever you want”.

[/quote]

I wasn’t clear, and I do apologize. I said Tao was a Chinese word for"way". A way is not a not a thing. It’s an idea or set of actions. Like if you need help you’ll ask some one to “show me the way you do that”. They won’t show you a physical object. they’ll show you how to do it.
See the significance of the uncarved block is it can be carved into any shape because it hasn’t been carved yet. The moment you cut a piece off you’ve limited what it could be. When you define something you limit what it could be. That’s why, and again I may be very wrong, the Tao Te Ching also says “One who seeks knowledge learns something new every day.
One who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.”

By not defining things you retain flexability which helps you adapt as the world changes.

Daoist Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Tao is both the “way” and the embodiment of reality - it is the immanent diety (that is, it is that part of the universe that, permiating the whole, seeks “virtue” and is worthy of awe and worship). It cannot be defined, but it is certainly not “nothing”. “Nothing” is itself a definition!

The first verse of the Lao Tzu has been translated many times. I like this one:

There are plenty more here: Tao Te Ching (175 translations of the first chapter)

The first line is often quoted (as in “the tao that can be named …”), but the significance is in the last verse - that names, or definitions, and the nameless are both in a way the same, and mysterious; that lack of desire and desire are both necessary and that the universe is both inconceivable and conceivable …
[/QUOTE]

Your link was to this paragraph

3. Is Daoism a Philosophy or a Religion?

In the late 1970s Western and comparative philosophers began to point out that an important dimension of the historical context of Daoism was being overlooked because the previous generation of scholars had ignored or even disparaged connections between the classical texts and Daoist religious belief and practice. We have to lay some of the responsibility for such neglect at the feet of the eminent translator and philosopher Wing-Tsit Chan, who spoke of Daoist religion as a degeneration of Daoist philosophy arising from the time of the Celestial Masters (see below) in the late Han period. He was an instrumental architect of the view that Daoist philosophy (daojia) and Daoist religion (daojiao) are entirely different traditions.

Our interest in trying to separate philosophy and religion in Daoism is more revealing of the Western frame of reference we use than of Daoism itself. Daoist ideas fermented among master teachers who had a holistic view of life. These daoshi (Daoist masters) did not compartmentalize practices by which they sought to influence the forces of reality, increase their longevity, have interaction with realities not apparent to our normal way of seeing things, and order life morally and by rulership. They offered insights we might call philosophical aphorisms. But they also practiced meditation and physical exercises, studied nature for diet and remedy, practiced rituals related to their view that reality had many layers and forms with whom/which humans could interact, led small communities, and advised rulers on all these subjects. The masters transmitted their teachings, some of them only to disciples and adepts, but gradually these became more widely available as is evidenced in the very creation of the Daodejing and Zhuangzi themselves.

The agenda that provoked Westerners to separate philosophy and religion, dating at least to the classical Greek period of philosophy was not part of the preoccupation of Daoists. Accordingly, the question whether Daoism is a philosophy or a religion is not one we can ask without imposing a set of understandings, presuppositions, and qualifications that do not apply to Daoism. But this is not a reason to discount the importance of Daoist thought. Quite to the contrary, it may be one of the most significant ideas classical Daoism can contribute to the study of philosophy in the present age.

Reads to me like it could be either be philosophy, religion, neither, or both. At peace with both sides. Just how Taoists like it;)

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

Dang it I messed my quotes up. Sorry Malthus. Could a mod fix it please?

[MrDibble]

Still haven’t learned how to spell the concept you’re butchering, I see. It’s “deity”. Which the Tao is not.

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=The Tao’s Revenge]
I wasn’t clear, and I do apologize. I said Tao was a Chinese word for"way". A way is not a not a thing. It’s an idea or set of actions. Like if you need help you’ll ask some one to “show me the way you do that”. They won’t show you a physical object. they’ll show you how to do it.
[/quote]

The Taoists were fond of puns and word-play: Tao does indeed mean “way” but it has lots of other meanings, too.

Tao

In Taoist cosmology, the Tao is also somewhat akin to the prime mover, only a pantheistic one: hence, my description of it as an immanent deity.

The intellectual version describes a cosmology in which the world of Tao was monist in its pre-creation stage, an immanence that applies to the order of the universe (TTE Chapter 40) as well as the human anatomy, dualistic during its transformations like the two realms, heaven and earth, and ultimately panentheistic in that the same Tao is prevalent today in all creation, as it was pre-creation.

While a wiki quote is obviously determinative of nothing, this is similar to my understanding of the matter, as gleaned from translations of the Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

See the significance of the uncarved block is it can be carved into any shape because it hasn’t been carved yet. The moment you cut a piece off you’ve limited what it could be. When you define something you limit what it could be. That’s why, and again I may be very wrong, the Tao Te Ching also says “One who seeks knowledge learns something new every day.
One who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.”

By not defining things you retain flexability which helps you adapt as the world changes.

To my mind, Lao Tzu at least believed that one must at the same time attempt definitions of things so as to understand their manifestations, and remain open to the ultimately ineffible nature of the ultimate reality, the Tao; what is meant by this (I think) is is that one needs both logic in order to observe and understand reality, and an intuition of the divine (in this case, the Tao) in order to really be “in tune” with reality - to find the Way (again, Tao).

To object which one is “in tune” with, the “mystery of mysteries”, is the Tao; the act of intuition or mysticism is realizing one-ness with the Tao. Whatever the Tao is, I’d say it is best characterized, at the risk of “naming” (and speaking as a student of religions and philosophies rather than as an adherent), as an immanent deity of the roughly pantheistic variety; it has no personality (Lao Tzu remarked that the Tao is not benevolent), but it has an effect; it exists as more than the sum of creation, though it has no existence outside of creation.

Your link was to this paragraph

Reads to me like it could be either be philosophy, religion, neither, or both. At peace with both sides. Just how Taoists like it;)

I think the distinction is mostly meaningless. The issue imposed by Western scholars was imposed because of the long-standing difference, in the West, between “philosophy” and “religion”. I’m not sure how meaningful such a dichotomy was to the Chinese.