this review just made me spew bourbon all over my laptop.

I'm pleased to see you don't bother to separate boozing and goodreading. We'll get along famously.

Taoism is genius and completely lost on you heathens.

Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know.

I speak a lot. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Taoism is common sophistry.

Of course it's beautiful; it couldn't be sophistry otherwise. It's the genius claim that's deluded.

Taoism hides its incoherence beneath a veil of lyricism. Its poetry acts as both the vehicle and cover for a plausible-sounding (especially to anyone accustomed to and weary of the Western tradition) and decentralized meaning which ultimately is no more "real" than, say, the axioms of quackery like dianetics.

Isaiah wrote: "Taoism is common sophistry."

actually the sophists thought that truth is subjective and therefore arbitrary.
The Taoists believe that there is an objective truth whether you choose to seek it or not.

Sophistry the English word, not Sophistry, "the philosophy of the Sophists." Two separate things.

Perhaps you are referring to the colloquial use of the word today. The word still refers to an argument that is misleading for the personal gain of the arguer. It doesn't seem as though Lao Tsu does this. But, then again, how would I know?

I think of sophistry as argumentation that is fallacious and yet sounds good, not necessarily something that yields immediate personal gain. Sophistry is that which is pleasing to the ear or mind, and hence pleasurable to believe, and yet upon close inspection has no rigorous meaning at all.

That is the very thing with the Tao. It is something that is not able to be grasped through intellectualizing (if that is a real word). The best way I can describe it is to say that when you see something from the corner of your eye you look and it is still at the edge of your vision so you can never get a good look at it. Personally it has driven me nuts trying to grasp all of it. You have to take it in and then systematically forget it. It sounds like hog-wash to us westerners. We generally prefer the head on approach to philosophy. Thanks for your response and your patience with me.
-edward

Reading this philosophical quibbling reminded me of something another Taoist wrote:

A fish-trap is for catching fish;
once you've caught the fish you
can forget the trap. A rabbit
snare is for catching rabbits;
once you've caught the rabbit
you can forget about the snare.
Words are for catching ideas;
once you've caught the idea,
you can forget about the words.
Where can I find a person who
knows how to forget about
words so I can have a few
words with him?

Chuang Tzu. Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu.. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1994. Translated with commentary by Victor H. Mair, p. 276.

That's a good point you make. Tell you what, once you've forgotten about words, swing on back by here and we'll chat.

Moving on to koans already?

The force is strong with this one, lads. Taoists will forget words then make up new ones to cuss him.

My brilliant comments on this thread have been, but are not. We have but this "like" that is unlike them.

Sadly, if I do come back to chat, I'll have nothing to say. (Hmmm. Or is that 'Gladly'...).

Of course, I could always use the words of others, to wholly express my lack of understanding that

... one gets nowhere unless one talks to people about the things they know. The naïve person does not appreciate what an insult it is to talk to one's fellows about anything that is unknown to them.
                      — Jung, C.G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York:
                          Vintage Books, p. 103.

These comments make me want to listen to bad slam poetry or just read some Gertrude Stein.

It's a witty comment but there's no way you can give this book any rating. It's ambiguous, more than any religious text I seen. It's mythical. It works because you make it work. It doesn't work because you don't want it to work. The book is a conduit to your inner self.

Do you hear that Isaiah? Your inner self is witty.

Jen wrote: "Do you hear that Isaiah? Your inner self is witty."
I think Isaiah needs some prozac.

My inner self doesn't care about anything but review votes.

Your inner self is a whore, yet not a whore. More like a tease.

I forgot you even existed, Isaiah. How down with the Tao is THAT?

A review not voted upon is as a fish in the deep

It feeds not the sage

It follows only the path of fishness

A goodreader not remembered resembles the uncarved block

Without whoring, he reads

Without email, he knows the mysteries of words

In the way of Goodreads, votewhoring and forgetting become as man and wife.

*Sound of two hands clapping*

I may not agree with you, but this made me laugh!

"Of course it's beautiful; it couldn't be sophistry otherwise." Sir, your very statement is nothing but sophistry. beautiful -> sophistry?

Only as I make my own progress, am I able to understand what I have left behind.

How did I end up here? Bye.

see ya!

Thank you. This review made me chuckle.

The comment that can be perceived is not the true comment.
The comment that can be called out is not worthy of commentary.
Commentlessness begins the long-lived comment
the mother of eternal circumloquatious perambulations
where desire moves the meaninglessness of words onward
into the manifold universe of longish sentences
that merge to form the unknowable meaning of page bound paragraphs.
And therein a unity is discovered that strives without limit to capture every meaning
but remains always mysterious and unsourced like a long silent fart.