Discussion on Orthodox Taoist Belief Part 5: Recognizing Sophistry
After I wrote the article <<Are There Distinctions Between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Orthodoxy and Heresy>>, some people expressed difficulty in understanding it.
They argued that what was said made no sense, claiming that being unable to distinguish is true great wisdom. As for discussing the divination aspect among the Five Arts of Taoism, they dismissed it as mere fortune-telling, unworthy of serious discussion.
People holding such views often share a common trait: they are mentally ill. This is called the "Messiah Complex," a type of mental disorder. Its typical characteristic is self-righteousness; they often pretend to be saviors, as if everyone else is suffering while they are not. In reality, the true reason is that they feel superior in their own hearts, so they look down on others.
Those who believe that divination is a form of petty wisdom rather than great wisdom can only be described as lacking intelligence. Even if saints from other religions said such things, it would only prove that the level of intelligence required to be hailed as a saint is merely mediocre.
The fundamental principle behind divination is mathematical. It encompasses the description of all tangible and intangible things. This is exactly why divination arts are called "mathematical arts" (Shu Shu).
Those who claim that divination is superstition or inferior can only be advised to check their IQ. In their eyes, anything they cannot understand is considered inferior.
Alright, I will stop criticizing such people. Intelligence is innate, and if they are unwilling to make up for it later in life, then they can only be called what they are.
Now, let's get to the main topic. Those who can understand can continue reading. I will try to use plain and easy-to-understand explanations. If you don't understand, take your time; it's not difficult.
I. Yin and Yang in Two Dimensions
First, let's look at the following statements:
Is this right or wrong?
Is this justice or evil?
Is this beauty or ugliness?
Is this long or short?
Let's imagine a circle in the void, similar to the concept of Yin and Yang. When we try to use it to judge an objective object, a binary "either this or that" logic forms the figure below:
This divides the concept into two distinct categories. Any target object placed on this circle must belong to either the left side or the right side.
The dividing line in the middle is essentially an abstract line. You can see this line because the colors on both sides are different, and your brain constructs this line. In reality, the line itself does not exist on the circle, so the same point cannot belong to both colors simultaneously.
The dividing line serves as the standard for judgment.
At this point, it should be clear that the concept of Yin and Yang is binary (either this or that), which is philosophically valid.
Regarding the geometric projection of concepts and the distinction of Yin and Yang in multi-dimensional spaces, I will explain in detail in the future. This article focuses on the problem of sophistry. We must first understand the techniques of sophistry to avoid being misled during interpretation.
However, in reality, there are indeed things that are easily confused. Why is this?
This leads us to the issue of dimensions.
II. Adding Dimensions for Sophistry
The figure above is a two-dimensional plane, meaning its division of Yin and Yang is only effective for two-dimensional classification.
Our real world is not two-dimensional but multi-dimensional. How are these dimensions added?
Look at the following statement:
In the morning, is the object in the east the sun or the moon?
This statement introduces two additional conditions: "morning" and "east." This is equivalent to adding two dimensions to the two-dimensional plane.
Morning is the dimension of time, and east is the dimension of direction.
Thus, it becomes a definition in four-dimensional space.
If more conditions are added, it will form statements with higher dimensions.
In general discussions, similar scenarios occur:
A: Can water be drunk?
B: Yes.
A: Can dirty water be drunk?
B: No.
A: Then how can you say water can be drunk?
The person answering that water can be drunk is not necessarily wrong, as they are referring to water in general, which usually implies potable water. However, the questioner deliberately introduced a new dimension, i.e., dirty water, making the answer "water can be drunk" incorrect in this specific context.
This is a common technique in debates: pose a question, then add dimensions to that question to refute it, thereby making the opponent's answer incorrect.
III. Extracting Concepts for Sophistry
For example, the above question can be expanded as follows:
A: Can water be drunk?
B: Yes.
A: Can dirty water also be drunk?
B: No.
A: Distilled water is not absolutely clean, and the water we drink daily is not absolutely clean either. Therefore, there is no water in this world that is not dirty. This shows there is no distinction between dirty and clean, so dirty water can also be drunk.
This question appears more confusing, and many people are misled here, believing it to be true.
Is it actually like this? The technique here is no different from adding the dimension of "dirty" earlier. Here, the definition and concept of "dirty" are swapped, making A appear correct again.
In the statement "Distilled water is not absolutely clean, and the water we drink daily is not absolutely clean either. Therefore, there is no water in this world that is not dirty. This shows there is no distinction between dirty and clean, so dirty water can also be drunk," how was the concept successfully swapped?
In common sense, dirty water refers to sewage containing harmful substances. Here, dirty water is extended to mean water containing impurities. The definitions of the two are completely different.
This exploits a loophole in thinking: Harmful substances = substances. These two are not on the same dimension and cannot be replaced arbitrarily, but this is easily overlooked by people, resulting in semantic ambiguity and achieving the technique of substituting one thing for another.
These are essentially games of thought, constantly swapping concepts and changing definitions.
IV. Creating New Words for Sophistry
The benefit of creating new words is that you can interpret them however you want. When an accurate definition is needed, you create new words again. This is common in Buddhist techniques, as illustrated below:
A: Can water be drunk?
B: Pure and unobstructed water can be drunk.
A: What is pure and unobstructed water?
B: It is called pure because it is unstained. (Note here: only purity is discussed, not unobstructedness. If a loophole appears, one can add that unobstructedness has not yet been discussed.)
A: Then what is unobstructedness?
B: It is called unobstructed because there are no hindrances.
A: What does unstained mean?
B: If dyed in blue, it becomes blue; if dyed in yellow, it becomes yellow. The entering substance changes, and its color also changes. Therefore, one must be cautious about dyeing. (Note here: the definition is not clarified at all, but rather other topics are brought up. Ordinary people are easily fooled and may praise the wisdom.)
A: You still haven't clearly explained what unstained means.
B: Don't you understand yet? What is called dyeing is due to grasping at colors.
A: Then what is grasping at colors?
B: It is the arising of conditions and the emptiness of nature; form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are the five aggregates.
............
From the dialogue above, we can see that B constantly creates new words and new concepts, refusing to provide definitions. Whenever an explanation is needed, B creates more new words to confuse. If B can drag it out to the end, the number of things A needs B to define grows geometrically, but B never defines them and occasionally creates new words in the process.
This style of sophistry is also called: Emptiness Language.
Like the so-called vast Buddhist scriptures, apart from imagined and superstitious content, most of it is just this kind of nonsense.
Those familiar with Buddhism should clearly understand the most typical example is the concept of Alaya-vijnana (Storehouse Consciousness). This concept was intentionally created to explain how karma can continue in reincarnation when all dharmas are empty and there is no subject of reincarnation. However, no matter how it is explained, it cannot be logically consistent, leading to different interpretations among various sects and disputes among them. For example, the Esoteric school says that the seventh and eighth consciousnesses are nonsense and imagination, because when Esoteric Buddhism was transmitted, the Consciousness-Only school had not yet developed the seventh and eighth consciousnesses. Meanwhile, the She-lun school found problems with the eighth consciousness and proposed a ninth consciousness, bringing up the concept of Amala-vijnana.
With thorough research, it is easy to discover these sophistry techniques.
IV. Summary
Some of the statements described above may give ordinary people, who are unfamiliar with sophistry techniques, a feeling of sudden enlightenment, making them feel they truly understand something. In reality, this is just an illusion of the brain.
Here, clearly stated, are the three magic weapons of sophistry:
1. Adding dimensions
2. Swapping concepts
3. Creating new words
Please note that this article is not teaching you how to perform sophistry. These points are made so that you are not fooled. Many so-called pseudo-practitioners love to use these tricks to deceive people. Please view this correctly.
Because the depth of ordinary people's thinking is limited, going three or four levels deeper makes it easy to fool them.
The following descriptions use similar techniques. Readers can reflect on them to find the errors, and naturally, you will fully understand what is being said.
Among bad people, there are good people, and among good people, there are bad people. Therefore, good and bad are relative, so there is no distinction between good and bad.
This is a white horse, not a black horse. But whether white or black, they are all horses. Therefore, a white horse equals a black horse.
Bite a pancake once, and there is still uneaten part. Bite again, and there is still uneaten part. Therefore, this pancake can never be finished.
There is always distance between molecules, so you have never touched anything.
Things in the world are无非 (nothing more than) what you know and what you don't know. What you already know doesn't need to be learned, and what you don't know, how can you learn it? Therefore, you fundamentally do not need to learn.