An argument by Chuang Tzu in favor of an anti-intellectual, mystical attitude:

1. The mind grasps individualities, each as a contrary to another, and is bound by perspective, with no objective or "bird's-eye" discernment possible (skepticism).

2. The Tao is the union of contraries and their identity ("from the standpoint of Tao, a beam and a pillar are identical").

3. Therefore, if you would know Tao, do not "wear out one's intellect in an obdurate adherence to the individuality of things."

Relativity of values:

• human desires differ from (e.g.) bees' desires
• humans as well as different species differ on beauty etc.

Philosophic contentions (e.g. Mohists vs. Confucianists) are irresolvable; no one can serve as an unbiased judge.

No one knows the ultimate sources of thought and emotion (cf. Nietzsche who says that no one knows what her next thought will be).

It is impossible to tell the difference between dreaming and waking.

Support for premise 2:

The subjective and objective depend on each other, while the subjective is prior in order of knowledge and the objective in order of being

Everything is both subjective and objective.

Mystical experience (?)

A lemma in further support of the conclusion 3:

It is a matter of attaining balance, or natural harmony (the "light of nature") to "put oneself in subjective relation with externals, without consciousness of their objectivity")

If all things are one, we cannot speak. (Words differentiate.)

But we just said so, so speech must be possible.

A question for Chuang Tzu:

Can the mind know the Tao? (Why are you writing?)