("real world") perfection that is eternal, Lao Tzu's

　　   Tao is consistent with the traditional  Chinese view

　　   of  dynamic  reality, as contained  in the  I Ching.

　　   Change, then, is not an affront  or a weakness  or a

　　   negation, but simply and admitted characteristic  of

　　   reality.

　　　　  The name  given  to Tao, is not  its real  name,

　　   merely a heuristic device. What is unique about this

　　   so-called  Nameless  Tao is that not only can it not

　　   be named  by us, but moreover  no name  can ever  be

　　   applicable  to it.  The ultimate  reality  cannot be

　　   encompassed  within the necessarily restricted scope

　　   of linguist  patterns.  The problem  resides  not in

　　   Tao, but  rather  in the  inherent  deficiencies  of

　　   human

　　   ────────────

　　   (16) Charles We-hsun Fu and Sandra A. Wawrytko,

　　　　 trans., Lao  Tzu: Tao  Te Ching: A New  Annotated

　　　　 Translation (forthcoming from Greenwood Press).

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.351

　　   discourse, and so the essential dissonance  existing

　　   between language and Taoism is revealed. Language is

　　   fundamentally  based  on  naming.  Names  provide  a

　　   common  point of reference  for communication;  they

　　   define and delimit reality within the confines  most

　　   comfortable  to human comprehension.  Thus, language

　　   is best able to deal with tangible objects and their

　　   properties  (such  as color) that  fall  within  the

　　   range of human experience.  The cultural  nuances of

　　   that experience  occasionally  result  in words that

　　   defy  translation  when  a corresponding  experience

　　   does not exist in the second culture.(17)

　　　　  The  strength  of language  allows  us to fix or

　　   secure  things by means of a name or label.  However

　　   such  fixation  also  can be fatal.  Thus, Friedrich

　　   Nietzsche sarcastically berates western philosophers

　　   for a mind-set grounded  in abstract  verbalization:

　　　　  You ask me which of the philosophers' traits are

　　　　  really  idiosyncrasies? For example, their  lack

　　　　  of historical  sense, their  hatred  of the very

　　　　  idea of becoming, their  Egypticism.  They think

　　　　  that they show their respect for a subject  when

　　　　  they de-historicize  it, sub specie aetenuu-when

　　　　  they turn it into a mummy. All that philosophers