Philosophical Natures - Absence of Accuracy and Empiricism

Philosophical Natures is a descriptive term that points at the behavior of [1] individuals claiming that their a priori inventions about a topic are true truth regardless of the obvious fact that [2] the individuals have no knowledge of — nor firsthand experience with — the topic. The results of philosophical natures are always very easy to recognize by individuals who have firsthand experience with the topic, and thus have a firsthand understanding of what the topic entails.

The philosophical nature behavior is witnessed in all philosophical writings of all cultures throughout all of known history, and is most prominent in the writings by scholar-philosophers.

Introduction

This article originally began as an extension to the Xunzi - Encourage Learning and The Secret of the Golden Flower articles. While editing, the article appeared to not say what was needed to be said, so it was decided to not finish nor to upload the article. After over two years of the article sitting idle, recent events have sparked a reason of why the article may indeed be useful. The article's categories have been condensed to two core contrasts: [1] real world accuracy that can be empirically proven (comparatively referencing the Xunzi - Encourage Learning article), and [2] philosophy's absence of accuracy and firsthand empiricism (referencing The Secret of the Golden Flower article).

Standards of Accuracy

Directly related to the archery sentence in the Xunzi book, the following is a brief overview of some of the things that exist within the real world of skilled accuracy, and, the overview is accompanied with irrefutable firsthand empirical evidence. [Note: the article's original version had numerous photographs that illustrated each sub-topic, but the photographs are not presented in this final version.] The first goal is to present empirical evidence of what is deemed to infer 'accuracy', and to then use the evidence of accuracy to be a contrast to what philosophers claim 'accuracy' to imply. The end goal is to illustrate that philosophers are not able to read ancient Chinese text, nor able to adequately translate the word 善 (shan) in Xunzi Encourage Learning (nor in any other Chinese text), nor are philosophers able to reason coherently. Incoherence is universal within all philosophies.

Within the field of electronics, accuracy of component values are usually measured to within tenths to thousandths. Accuracy of electronic outputs may be measured to within millionths to billionths. There is no tolerance for any component nor output that does not meet the standards of consistency.

Typical helicopter body component tolerances cannot exceed 30 thousandths (.030") of an inch (which is actually a bit excessive in many people's opinions).

Setting-up a maintenance shop, qualified techs may move work benches near the other and then measure to ensure that the benches are uniform of no more than 50 thousandths of an inch apart: it is merely a professional self-requirement for accuracy.

Competent chess players must be precise and consistent of analyses, else lose. Within the game of chess, once a move has been made, the move cannot be taken back: no second chances, every move much be accurate. Empirical evidence of accuracy is found within a new player's first 'beginner' USCF/FIDE rating being higher than a known nation's top chess player, of winning the first chess tournament the first time of playing with chess players, and a bookshelf being filled with chess trophies, all marked "1st Place".

A known officer's repeated firearm accuracy at 200 yards is ~.15" for the first 2-3 shots (about half the diameter of one bullet), and then the final five-round group widens to ~.25-.35" (about the diameter of one bullet) as the barrel heats and warps. The officer scored first place at the academy's firearm qualifications. Photos and actual targets provide irrefutable empirical evidence of skill and consistent accuracy.

Archery is similar to the above: environmental variables change accuracy, components (bow and arrows) are never identically consistent, physical and psychological stamina changes for each shot, each accurate shot must be accurately judged before shooting, and once the arrow is shot, there is not a second chance to shoot again.

Of the available statistics, in 2012 Im Dong-hyun held the Olympic archery record score of 699 out of 72 shots. Kim Woo's Olympic archery record of 2016 was a score of 700. Brady Ellison recently topped the world's record with a score of 702. Shooting at a distance of about 70 yards, with a bullseye of 4.8" diameter, and a maximum score of 720, Olympic shooters' skills are remarkably excellent. Yes, Im, Kim, and Ellison are most definitely "experts" even if they did not hit the bullseye 72 times in a row.

According to Dubs, Knoblock, and all other known scholar-philosophers who translated the book Xunzi, the world's best archers cannot be experts because the archers missed one or more shots.

"To miss once in a hundred shots is sufficient to prevent a person from being classed as an expert shot". (The Works of Hsüntze by Homer H. Dubs, Ph.D., publisher Arthur Probsthain, London, 1928).

It is empirical fact that the world's utmost topmost best chess players do not win one-hundred percent of all games, the world's best archers are not one-hundred percent perfect, nor is anything else in Reality one-hundred percent uniform, and, it can also be known and empirically proven that all philosophers make absurd claims that cannot possibly be true.

The Xunzi sentence's topic — as well as the following two sentences — was about consistency and uniformity, not about archery expertise. The scholar-philosophers were so incompetent and unprofessional that they did not know nor were they able to so much as rationalize what the topic was, regardless of the original text being very explicit in its meaning (the scholar-philosophers were unable to mentally correlate three sentences).

All skilled professionals ensure that their work is accurate, and all individuals who know of a topic can intricately describe the topic's details. Scholar-philosophers cannot intricately describe anything because no scholar-philosopher on earth has ever been an expert at anything whatsoever.

The general public assumes that the books that scholar-philosophers wrote must be true truth because the scholar-philosophers were university employees, but the general public has been greatly misled into believing falsehoods. As easy as it is to prove that the scholar-philosophers' translations of Chinese texts were incompetent and fully false, all known scholar-philosopher writings over the past 3,000 years are also as easily proven to be of false claims. The general public is permanently psychologically harmed when they believe anything that a philosopher says.

Wrong Words

First know what a thing is before giving the thing a name. If the thing is not known, then the name cannot be known.

It is obvious within all European and American literature: scholar-philosophers do not know what words mean. The inability to accurately describe what a word means, is a core symptom of philosophical nature.

(©) Electrical schematic that illustrates that memorizing words does not enable a knowing of what the words mean.

The above graphic is very elementary and crudely drawn, but the graphic is very useful as a means of illustrating the nature of philosophical thinking.

Beside each item in the graphic is a letter. Individuals who have no firsthand experience with the symbols cannot name what each symbol implies, nor are the individuals expected to know what the names are. It is fully acceptable for inexperienced individuals to not know the symbols' names.

A = capacitor. B = battery. C = switch. D = light bulb. E = resistor. Without first knowing what a capacitor, battery, switch, light bulb, and resistor are, now that the names have been given, philosophers leap to believe and to claim that they know everything about the schematic.

Philosophers typically invent the a priori belief that the schematic is a wiring diagram of a circuit that turns on a light bulb. The philosophical behavior is universal within all philosophies, all sciences, all schools, and all ideologies: people memorize a few words of a topic, and then the people believe that they know what the topic is.

What is the voltage of the battery? What is the voltage of the light bulb? What are the ohms of the resistor? What are the farads of the capacitor? Without first knowing what each item is, it is not possible to know what the things do.

Everyone who knows anything useful about electrical circuits will immediately know that the graphic is not of a circuit that turns on a light bulb. Batteries are DC, and DC current cannot flow through a capacitor (unless the DC has high enough voltage to arc-through and to destroy the capacitor). AC 'flows' through capacitors, not DC.

A 1.5 volt battery cannot light a 120 volt light bulb. A 100-meg resistor will not permit enough voltage to pass to light a light bulb. A high ohm switch will not permit continuity. There are many variables within all things, and no single word is able to define what anything is.

Memorizing words is useless if an individual does not know what the words mean. If a person knows nothing of electrical components, then a knowledge of the components' names is of no usefulness.

No philosopher is able to describe what words mean. Philosophers and scientists speak of emotions, but no known philosopher nor scientist has ever been able to describe what an emotion is: literally none. Philosophers and ideologists often speak of virtue, but literally none are able to describe what virtue means. Countless millions of school books use words like 'emotions', 'virtue', 'love', and 'thinking', but none of the authors were able to describe what their own words meant.

A useful description of a word requires several minutes to several hours to describe with verbs and physical illustrations; no scholar-philosopher is able to do that. Legge, Dubs, Wilhelm, Jung, Freud, William James, Einstein, et al, were all unable to describe any word.

All known philosophers throughout all known history were unable to describe any word. If a scientist, theologian, or teacher is unable to describe a word's meaning, then the individuals are mere philosophers. The inability to describe a word's meaning is a symptom of philosophical nature.

The English noun 'philosophy' is popularly said to have originated from the Greek philos sophia, 'love of wisdom'. However, humorously, philosophers do not know what 'love' is, nor what 'wisdom' is, and yet philosophers gave themselves a name without first knowing what the name means. And that is precisely the nature of philosophy; of claiming that unknown words can be defined through use of other unknown words.

On the topic of love, an individual who has a firsthand experience of distinguishing emotions will speak of wave functions, wave patterns, amperages (quantities), voltages (pressures), decay rates, inductances, capacitances, time dilations, multi-spatial transductances, and a slew of other 'physics' that exist within each emotion. The individual, having learned through firsthand experience, may also devise methods of creating enhanced forms of emotions. The individual creates a method of attaining a 'love' that has no selfishness, nor desires for self, while the 'love' is overwhelmingly beautiful, and one of the outward physical expressions is of a very strong crying with happiness for someone else's happiness. The individual is able to repeat the process at will, and do so as easily as tuning RF chokes in a radio circuit. The individual is able to continuously increase the intensities of the 'love'. The individual understands that there is no boundary of 'love'. The individual understands firsthand what 'love' means, and the individual is able to present empirical evidence of its accuracy.

Philosophers, however, say that love is lust, habit, desire, and jealously, all of which are self-destructive negatives, as well as being a direct mirror of the philosophers themselves. Philosophers know nothing of emotions, nor know anything of the laws of Nature, nor know anything of the 'physics' of Nature, and yet philosophers claim to know what 'love' is. Philosophers condemned themselves when they gave themselves the name of 'philosopher'.

Many ideology texts speak of 'love'. The authors were frauds because the authors did not know what they were claiming to know, and the authors made claims that could not possibly be true. Worse, philosophers assumed that the authors must have been experts because the authors were socially popular, and so the philosophers claimed the texts to be valid truth. One example of the result can be found within how the philosophers Wilhelm and Jung translated The Secret of the Golden Flower.

Perhaps the best known examples of philosophy are found within dictionaries. A public domain Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines logic as "The science or art of exact reasoning...". The same dictionary defines reasoning as "n. The act or process of adducing a reason or reasons; manner of presenting one's reasons." Then the dictionary defines reason as "v. To find by logical process...". The dictionary applied circular reasoning by saying that logic implies reasoning, then saying that reasoning is an act of reason, and then saying that reason is an act of logic.

The dictionary behavior of circular reasoning is predominate within academia and philosophy. It is very easy to discern that the dictionary was written by academicians and philosophers whom themselves did not have any firsthand experience with the topics, and thus did not know what any of the words mean.

Today, the noun philosophy has numerous meanings, but is most commonly witnessed and interpreted under the definition: 'a system of belief; an ideology'. The word 'ideology' implies the classical definition of "...unpractical or visionary speculation; vain theorizing; the set of ideas, prejudices, etc., which determine the individual's general point of view or philosophy of life" (The Winston Dictionary - College Edition, Copyright© 1943, The John C. Winston Co., P.F. Collier & Son Corporation Publishers, New York.)

Ideologies are not based upon empirical evidence, nor based upon firsthand experience. Philosophy is of a priori imaginations, and not very good ones.

If philosophers were as acute as they claim, then they would have given an accurate interpretation of the title Correct Name ('correct' is an adjective) instead of naming the title Rectification of Names ('rectification' is a verb), and also given an accurate name to the title of Middle Use instead of naming the title The Doctrine of the Mean. Scholar-philosophers appear to not so much as to know the differences between nouns, adjectives, and verbs. (Philosophers would not be able to pass a 3rd grade language competency test.)

Example: 息 (xi) implies 'nose' and 'heart' combined, which generally implies 'breathe'. The word 'breathe' is a verb of action. Although it is good to breathe, it would be absurd to claim that the word implies the adjective 'good'. Scholar-philosophers frequently use the English word 'good' for Chinese verbs. The end result is of the scholar-philosophers' Chinese translations being absurd, incoherent, and simply wrong.

Overview of Philosophical Natures

Three categories define a fraudulent text: [1] an author's inclusion of pseudo-religious ideas, [2] the author's claims that the pseudo-religious ideas are one and the same as Taoism, Christianity, and/or any other, and [3] the fraudulent texts very strongly exhibit incoherent mental patterns (medically termed 'dementia'). The three categories also apply to other topics (i.e. politics). This article most focuses upon the topic of pseudo-religions.

Three categories define a philosophical text: [1] denial of Reality, [2] inability of accuracy, and [3] the use of a priori inventions (a priori is defined as an act of reasoning that is based upon imaginations rather than based upon empirical facts of what is real in the real world.)

By using the six categories to be measures of written texts, this article points at two specific natures of all philosophies: [1] philosophers have no firsthand understanding of real-world topics (denial of Reality), and [2] the underlying philosophical belief is that all knowledge is able to be attained from reading books and through a priori inventions. The first nature of philosophy is clearly illustrated in Dubs' and Knoblock's translations of Encourage Learning. The second nature of philosophy is illustrated throughout the book The Secret of the Golden Flower by Richard Wilhelm and C. G. Jung (as translated by Cary F. Baynes).

Encourage Learning speaks of the necessity of firsthand experiences, the article Principles of Quality speaks of the necessity of firsthand experiences, and all sane people speak of the necessity of firsthand experiences. Philosophies and scholar-philosophers, however, deny the necessity for firsthand experience.

Philosophical Nature #1 - Denial of Reality

"To miss once in a hundred shots is sufficient to prevent a person from being classed as an expert shot". (The Works of Hsüntze by Homer H. Dubs, Ph.D., publisher Arthur Probsthain, London, 1928).

The philosophical translations exhibit five core faults: [1] an inability to read ancient Chinese words, [2] an inability to form a coherent English sentence, [3] an absence of firsthand experience of the topic, [4] a priori inventions that deny the reality of what is real in the real world, and [5] the failure to read, remember, comprehend, and correlate the text's surrounding sentences which explain what the topic is.

From Xunzi #4, the following is a basic word-per-word draft translation of the same Chinese sentence: 'Hundred shoot, miss one, not attain meaning-name consistent-uniform shoot.' The translation makes sense, the translation relates to what is real in the real world, and the translation is rationally harmonious with all of the other sentences and paragraphs within the chapter's original Chinese text. Furthermore, the use of 善 (shan) in other ancient Chinese texts also points to the 'consistent-uniform' idea while never ever implying "expert" nor "good" as the philosophers claimed. Shan means something far more important than 'consistent-uniform', but the definition is not made public for scholar-philosophers to copy-paste nor to 'ear to mouth' recite.

(An interesting side-note: while glancing through a long list of ancient Chinese texts, a title was found (written in Chinese with no English translation) that was supposed to have been one of the books that were permanently lost. Having begun translating the book, it was found to be quite excellent of its topic, of no less importance than any Confucian era book. It was later discovered that scholar-philosophers had given the book a rather peculiar English title, a title that does not relate to the book's topic. The book and its topic were never lost; the book and topic are today being translated into English with wrong English words because scholar-philosophers are unable to mentally correlate three concepts to discern a Chinese word's meaning. Recorded history itself is also being proven to have been false because of scholar-philosophers not knowing what words mean.)

Philosophical Standards of Accuracy

Humans are human, and all humans are imperfect. Again, one-hundred percent perfection is not possible in Nature. One of the differences between philosophers and people of skills, is that skilled people analyze why they made a mistake: 'Zi say: Shoot have similar, junzi miss altogether correct target, instead investigate altogether his person.' (draft version of Zhong Yong #15). Philosophers, however, appear to never recognize their mistakes, nor analyze anything.

Another difference is that thinking individuals physically participate in their own lives. When the individuals want to learn about shooting, the individuals learn by physically shooting. When the individuals want to learn about chess, the individuals physically play chess. In all topics — gardening, rural life, auto racing, owning a business, orthomolecular medicine, etc. — the individuals literally physically do the things and learn by having done the things. Xunzi's Encourage Learning also speaks of learning through firsthand experience.

Philosophers literally do sit in their armchairs and invent a priori imaginations of each topic.

Within the topics of ancient Chinese books', the thinking individual invests years of dedicated effort to achieve similar firsthand experiences sufficient enough to give detailed descriptions of what the topics entail, what procedures are necessary, what results are expected, and how each different topic relates to the others.

Philosophers continue sitting in their armchairs while inventing a priori imaginations of each topic. (Well-experienced Oxford University employee Richard Dawkins explained the process in one of his books, which generally states 'go off into a room by themselves and make stuff up'.)

When translating ancient Chinese texts, the individual of empirical firsthand experiences applies his own firsthand understandings to each topic, thus enabling him to describe why an ancient word like 八 implies 'divide'. Individuals with the firsthand experience of speaking one of the several modern 'Chinese' languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Min Nan, Wu, etc.) apply their knowledge in the attempt to read ancient Chinese (without first knowing what the words mean, nor knowing which language that the original author spoke, whether it be any of the numerous dialects of Chinese during the Warring States era, or Japanese, or Korean, etc., all of which used variations of the written Chinese characters). Philosophers apply their own firsthand experiences of copy-pasting modern Chinese-English dictionary definitions and copy-pasting other philosophers' words, all while still not knowing what 八 means.

Philosophers cannot describe what a thought is, what a memory is, what an emotion is, nor so much as describe what addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication are. There is literally no known philosophical writing from any era that speaks of the natures of thoughts, feelings, and 'math'. Philosophers do not know what the topics are, but still philosophers invent a priori fantasies, and then insist that the fantasies must be true truth.

Thinking individuals perform firsthand empirical research. Philosophers claim to believe in science, but philosophers refuse to perform — and refuse to accept — scientific empirical research.

Scholar-philosophers are unacceptably sloppy in thinking and behavior. Philosophers have no standard of accuracy. Philosophers always miss the target completely.

(Humorously related: A fellow at a rifle range, when asked how well his rifle shot, the man replied with a slow bubba hillbilly "Geud". When then asking the man what sort of grouping the rifle gave, again the man replied a similarly accented "Geud". Recognizing that the man had mental problems and was not qualified to be considered a serious shooter, no further questions were asked. Using one's own scope to look at his target, his accuracy was not 'good', not at all. When reading Dubs' translation of Encourage Learning paragraph #17 — "The goodness of the man on the street is little, his lack of goodness is great" — Dubs' words rang the memories of the man at the rifle range.)

Quoting the philosophers again:

"To miss once in a hundred shots is sufficient to prevent a person from being classed as an expert shot". (Dubs).

"One who misses a single shot out of 100 does not deserve to be called an expert archer." (Knoblock)

Shooting one-hundred arrows in a row at a distance is physically exhausting, and likely never done in any real competition. As mentioned previously, even the world's best archers — while using high quality synthetic bows and arrows, along with fancy sights and balance weights — do not score perfect scores. The plausibility of repeatedly shooting a perfect score of one-hundred shots is nonexistent.

Everyone who has knowledge of shooting knows that Dubs' and Knoblock's claims do not relate to the real world.

When translating ancient Chinese texts, word definitions ought to relate to the sentence's topics, and, ought to relate to what is real in the real world. But philosophers never do that. All known philosophers have always invented crazy things that make no sense. Philosophers purposefully invent incoherent names. Philosophers do not use coherent Correct Names.

Dubs' and Knoblock's translations exhibit the first philosophical nature along with the three categories that define a philosophical text: [1] denial of Reality, [2] inability of accuracy, and [3] the use of a priori inventions.

Philosophical Nature #2 - All Knowledge is From Reading Books and A Priori Inventions

Six articles give ample examples of how scholar-philosophers have claimed that reading books is the favored source of knowledge: Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #1, Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #2, Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #3, Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #4, Xunzi Book Encourage Learning #5, and Xunzi Book #6 Correct Name

In the real world, a person must actually feel weight and warmth, else the person can never know what the words 'weight' and 'warmth' mean. In the real world, a person must actually taste fresh, hear grinding metals, smell acidic, and see yellow before the person can know what the words mean. No book and no teacher will ever throughout eternity be able to teach a person what the words mean. All people learn through firsthand experience, even if the firsthand experience was subconscious. There is no magical 'built-in brain function' that supernaturally knows what words mean. All of life is a learning experience, a learning through firsthand experience. The moment that an individual stops firsthand experience in favor of reading books and listening to scholar-philosophers, that is the moment that the individual stops learning, and becomes a mere 'ear to mouth' reciter of unknown words. Scholar-philosophers loudly claim that they believe in science's physics that all things are composed of ingredients, but the same scholar-philosophers' actions are in direct denial of science's physics. Scholar-philosophers deny science, deny the way of Nature, deny physics, and deny commonsense when they preach words as a substitute of firsthand experiences.

Having denied what is real in the real world, philosophy's next step is to invent circular a priori reasonings of the previous a priori inventions. (Many modern Christian writings are similar, of the authors inventing a metaphor of a biblical metaphor, and then inventing a metaphor of the second metaphor, and then inventing a metaphor of the third metaphor, and the authors never appeared to know when to stop inventing metaphors, while all the time the authors never did catch what the original biblical metaphor was pointing at.) Though all philosophical writings for thousands of years have illustrated imaginative inventions, a good modern example is found within The Secret of the Golden Flower book (©1947, translated from Chinese into German by Richard Wilhelm, commented upon by C. G. Jung, translated from German into English by Cary F. Baynes, and printed in Great Britain by Lund). Note that, parallel to Legge and Dubs, Wilhelm had been a missionary to China, and later became a sinology employee at the University of Frankfurt. According to reports, Baynes had been a personal acquaintance of Jung's, and so it is assumed that she likely held a fair assessment of Jung's beliefs when she translated several of his books.

Due to Wilhelm and Jung's book The Secret of the Golden Flower easily having over a thousand examples of really bad a prior inventions, for this article the choice has been made to limit quotes to very few, and to place the quotes within three categories that define a fraudulent text: [1] the authors' inclusion of pseudo-religious ideas, [2] authors' claims that the pseudo-religious ideas are one and the same as Taoism and/or others, and [3] the fraudulent texts very strongly exhibit incoherent mental patterns (dementia).

Wilhelm's and Jung's comments also amply gave evidence of a profuse lack of topical knowledge as well as the inability to recognize absurdities — ("...Middle-grade imbeciles of adult age have much the same difficulty as normal children of 4 years in recognizing mutilations or absurdities..." (The Measurement of Intelligence, Lewis M. Terman, 1916)) — both of which illustrate the authors' own self-contradictions of [1] claiming that reading books can instill all possible knowledge (and yet neither author had sufficient book-reading to recognize that The Secret of the Golden Flower book is an obvious fakery), and [2] neither author could cross-light — ("The stupid person... Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively isolated." (Terman, Measurement of Intelligence)) — the obviousness that the book is in direct opposition to psychology, physics, and commonsense. Neither author could discern the difference between what the book claimed and of what is real in the Real world of the laws of Nature.

It is important to state that The Secret of the Golden Flower is a religious book, one that repeatedly promises personal gain through selfishness and material lusts; the book does not speak of quality nor of anything else beyond the greed of obtaining things that people want, desire, and lust for. If Wilhelm and Jung were the alleged 'experts' that they claimed themselves to be, then they would have immediately recognized The Secret of the Golden Flower to be false and unworthy of reading.

#1 Pseudo-Religious Ideas

"We have to see that the spirit must lean on science as its guide in the world of reality, and that science must turn to the spirit for the meaning of life." (Translator's Preface, Cary F. Baynes)

No. No spirit — regardless of what kind of spirit it might be — must lean upon "science", nor lean upon anything else outside of one's own self. The pseudo-religion of science is worshiped by most, honored by few, and followed by none. Before the first words of The Secret of the Golden Flower are presented, already Baynes had inserted the first of the three natures of fraudulent texts: the inclusion of pseudo-religious teachings. [Note that "religious" here infers an organized system of belief in a supernatural omnipresent omnipotent omniscient noun-based entity that rules everything, and, similar to common cult practices, no one is permitted to question the system of belief's man-made doctrines.]

#2 Pseudo-Religious Claims of Sameness

The following is an expansion and rephrasing of the topics within The Secret of the Golden Flower.

"Finally, the two last lines point to the deepest secret which cannot be dispensed with from the beginning to the end. It is the washing of the heart and the purification of the thoughts; it is the bath. The holy science takes as a beginning the knowledge of where to stop, and as an end, stopping at the highest good. Its beginning is beyond polarity and it empties again beyond polarity. Buddha speaks of the transient, the creator of consciousness, as being the fundamental truth of religion. And, in our Taoism, the expression " to produce emptiness " contains the whole work of completing life and essence. All three religions agree in the one proposition, the finding of the spiritual Elixir in order to pass from death to life. In what does this spiritual Elixir consist ? It means forever tarrying in purposelessness. The deepest secret in our teaching, the secret of the bath, is confined to the work of making the heart empty. There- with the heart is set at rest. What I have revealed here in a word is the fruit of decades of effort" (The Secret of the Golden Flower, Richard Wilhelm)

Of the available Chinese text, the Chinese author did appear to make several claims of "secret" teachings. The following is a quick partial draft word-per-word translation: 'Final two sentences right point exit secret middle it secret, secret middle it secret begin finish depart not obtain place, call-name wash-clean-purify heart-mind, wash-sweep-cleanse concern, to-make bathe-receive bath-wash {also}. Holy-sacred-sage learning use know footprint start, use footprint arrive consistent-good, start is-as-similar not-have ridgepole(wuji), return-go-back is-as-similar not-have ridgepole(wuji). Buddhism-enlightened use nothing dwell {and-while} birth heart-mind, become one great hide-conceal teaching decree.'

Wilhelm's translation might not be ideal, but most of the translation is close enough for the moment. Five things stand out as being most important of attention: [1] Wilhelm chose the European word "science" ("Wissenschaft") for 學 (xue) instead of choosing a more rational Asian idea of "firsthand learning". 學 (xue) is also the second word within Xunzi's chapter Encourage Learning. Dubs and Knoblock had chosen the interpretation of study (memorize book words) for xue. The European concept of "science" is purely cultural, and does not relate to historical Asian ideas. Wilhelm's error is not important of itself, but the error does illustrate that Wilhelm was a believer in his day's pseudo-religion of "science".

[2] If the Chinese text were over 2,000 years old, then the text's frequent use of the word "secret" might be interpreted to infer 'speak incomplete', that is, something like 'unclarified description' or simply not offering more of an explanation than what is being asked (e.g. 'Zi said: Not offended, not start, not want-speak, not express-interest, to-hold-up one corner, not with three corners up, then not repeat {also}." (draft translation from Shu Er 7.8)). However, since the text is relatively modern, then the word might only be phonetic and with the era's cultural meaning. Since near the end of the draft the sentence states "hide-conceal", then the author may have indeed implied "secret" for the other words. When a person claims to be telling a secret, then the listener can expect to told exaggerations. Fraudulent texts seem to use the word "secret" a lot.

[3] The book speaks of the "washing" of the heart (and/or mind) as being an external action of "washing"; not described as an internal nature, nor of an internal process. The book's idea is incorrect. Having been a missionary, Wilhelm ought to have been familiar with the writing:

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." (Matthew 23: 24-32).

The behavior of scribes and Pharisees has not changed much in two-thousand years, beyond that of changing their noun-names.

'Cleansing' begins inwardly, and finishes inwardly. The Secret of the Golden Flower (as translated by Wilhelm and others) teaches a false teaching that does not agree with real things in the real world, and most certainly does not agree with Christianity, Taoism, and Confucianism as the translators had claimed.

Individuals with firsthand experience of the Christian 'way', recognize what the early Christian symbols imply, because, the 'ideograph' symbols exhibit a product of the 'way'. The product is of a nature that has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to what is claimed within The Secret of the Golden Flower, and, is, in fact, strongly opposite. The Secret of the Golden Flower teaches "It means forever tarrying in purposelessness ...of making the heart empty", whereas Christianity's aim is for purpose and a radiantly filled heart that has no boundaries. For Wilhelm, Jung, and all other philosophical translators to have not known that, proves that the men were unqualified to speak of the topic.

Yes it is disturbing that Wilhelm was a missionary who did not so much as know of the cores of Christianity, but, Wilhelm's own "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel ...make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess ...and of all uncleanness" is the norm for philosophers who believe that 'ear to mouth' recitation of book words is all the knowledge that can be known. Within the Christian standard, Wilhelm was both a scribe and a Pharisee.

The junzi ideal within Confucianism is of inward qualities that naturally manifest with quality outward behaviors, but the inward qualities are vastly different from the Christian way.

A good dao chooses an inward nature that is creative, has purpose, has quality, has value, has fullness of heart and mind, has inner harmony, and is of harmony with the laws (way) of Nature. A good dao choice might appear to resemble the Christian product, but the dao choice itself colors the end-product.

Three different paths — Christianity, Confucianism, Taoism — may all have a purpose and a fullness of heart, but each have a different approach, a different foundational emotion, a different path, a different destination, and a different product. It might be said that a junzi is accurate and consistent within his Nature-based logic, thus creating a harmonious heart that is able to express benevolence to other people... a Christian might be said to be consistent of a type of love that has no boundaries... a Taoist might be said to be consistent within the goal of being creative of heart and spirit... a man with no name might be said to choose accuracy of mind, choose accuracy of heart, choose the most worthy path, and attain the goal through harmonious accuracy. All four individuals may do similar things, but the purposes behind each choice will create a different creation. If a man wishes to be a good man within society, then he will become a junzi... if a man wishes to fulfill someone else's standards of quality, then he will become a Christian... but if a man's aim is to achieve quality of self, then he will choose his own standard, and become his own standard. That which a person chooses determines what the person will become.

A quick comment on "All three religions agree": It is very common that all religions have bad followers, and it is also very common for bad Buddhists to attempt to take credit for all good things by the bad Buddhists claiming that Taoism, Christianity, Confucianism, and all others are of the same teachings as Buddhism. In the process of the bad Buddhists lying, the bad Buddhists also twist the other teachings' words around and around (philosophize) in an ignorant attempt to make it appear that the lying Buddhist's claims are correct. The Daodejing book is a prime example of having been perverted with different authors' voices claiming that the original author's ideas were Buddhist. The original author of Daodejing spoke of how ingredients create specific products, which is correct and the way (Tao) of Nature, but there, if Buddhism taught similar, then why does Buddhism not follow the identical same teaching? Mindful Buddhism has usefulness, but the bad Buddhists' teachings of selfish 'eternal bliss' and 'escaping suffering' are directly opposed to the concept of ingredients.

An extremely obvious nature of The Secret of the Golden Flower is of the words that it uses, but more obvious is of the words that the book does not use. The following is a list of several key words that relate to Confucianism, Christianity, and Buddhism. By observing which words were used in the book, and which words were not used in the book, it is obvious that The Secret of the Golden Flower book is wholly false.

Compassion, one of the core commandments of Buddhism, but impossible to accomplish because compassion first requires the ingredient of suffering the thing that compassion is given to: total times used - 0.

Benevolence, one of the topmost important topics of Confucianism: total times used - 0.

Fairness, another important Confucian behavior: total times used - 0.

Kindness, important in Confucianism and Christianity: total times used - 1, but the word was not related to an act of the believer being kind, and thus the total is actually 0.

Virtue, perhaps the topmost importance of Confucianism and Taoism: total times used - 3, but none of the words' uses related to virtue, and thus the total is actually 0.

Love, the obvious topmost importance within Christianity: total times used - 7, but none related to a teaching of loving people, and thus the total is actually 0.

Immortal, has relevance to Christianity as a heavenly reward, and in Buddhism as a selfish escape from suffering: total times used - 21.

Enlighten / enlightenment, a selfish lust and desire for material profit, and generally limited to Buddhism: total times used - 21.

Power, wholly selfish of vainglory: total times used - 25.

Empty / emptiness, is a Buddhist teaching of personal profit, which renders it selfish: total times used - 56.

The entirety of the book focuses solely on personal profit, selfishness, greed, lust, and material power. Where is the love of Christianity? Where is the virtue and benevolence of Confucianism? Where is the virtue and way of Nature within Taoism? There is none because the book's claims are false.

"All three religions agree in the one proposition, the finding of the spiritual Elixir in order to pass from death to life. In what does this spiritual Elixir consist? It means forever tarrying in purposelessness."

The book's claim is fully false. Christians have purpose in their lives, Confucians have purpose in their lives, and Taoists have purpose in their lives. "Purposelessness" is a Buddhist concept that most definitely does not agree with any other religion nor teaching.

As is witnessed throughout The Secret of the Golden Flower, for Wilhelm and Jung to have not known nor to have immediately recognized that the alleged Buddhist teachings were false, Wilhelm and Jung both proved of themselves to be uneducated, incompetent, and to know nothing whatsoever of the topic, to not so much as to know anything about their own "holy science". Science's physics is vehemently strict that all things are composed of other things, and yet all philosophers (i.e. Wilhelm, Jung, Legge, Dubs, Einstein, et al) always-always at all times always denied their own "holy science".

From Alo and De Follow: "....people, give mouth to one ideology... give bow to a different ideology... bosom neither...". Missionaries that gave mouth to a book god, gave bow to a school god, but bosomed neither. All philosophers are of the same.

[4] The Secret of the Golden Flower makes several different claims of other things that are not true (no accuracy). If the original author were indeed enlightened, then the author would have known that there cannot exist an "empty" heart, even if metaphorically. The book's wording suggests that the author did not possess sufficient self-awareness to so much as recognize his own emotions and inner-body feelings. Parallel, Wilhelm apparently did not notice the book author's lack of self-awareness either, and too, apparently Wilhelm did not know enough of his own "science" to recognize why a heart cannot be empty.

[5] 'Wuji' is 'nothing ridgepole', said to imply an immeasurable void. There, the book's use of 'wuji' proves the author to have not been self-aware enough to be aware that there does not exist such a thing in Nature as an immeasurable void like how the author described it — nor so much as an immeasurable pole — and therefore, the author was not 'enlightened' as he claimed to be. If Wilhelm had known what wuji is, and if Wilhelm had indeed been able to speak Chinese as histories claim, and if Wilhelm had truly believed in his "science", then he ought to have at least commented on the 'wuji' phrase, and he ought to have immediately recognized the book to be fraudulent. More about wuji can be found in the article Alo and De Wuji.

#3 Incoherent Patterns

Incoherency is all but perpetual within all philosophical translations. One quote should suffice.

"In order to make this strange fact more intelligible to the reader, it must be mentioned that just as the human body shows a common anatomy over and above all racial differences, so too, does the psyche possess a common substratum. I have called the latter the collective unconscious. As a common human heritage it transcends all differences of culture and consciousness and does not consist merely of contents capable of becoming conscious, but of latent dispositions toward identical reactions. Thus the fact of the collective unconscious is simply the psychic expression of identity of brain-structure irrespective of all racial differences. By its means can be explained the analogy, going even as far as identity, between various myth-themes and symbols, and the possibility of human understanding in general. The various lines of psychic development start from one common stock whose roots reach back into the past. Here too lies the psychological parallelism with animals. Taken purely psychologically, it means that we have common instincts of ideation (imagination), and of action. All conscious imagination and action have grown out of these unconscious prototypes, and remain bound up with them." (C. G. Jung, Commentary with Wilhelm's The Secret of the Golden Flower)

Most everyone has been told to believe the 'science' that states that all thoughts, all memories, all dreams, and even all emotions "are in your brain". Although the claim is fully absurd and based upon mermaid events, still most everyone truly does believe the 'science' to be true truth. When an individual speaks of recognizing specific intestinal states by how the states influence thoughts and feelings, the individual is ridiculed and hated-on by the science believers. But today, research is now speaking of intestinal bacteria influencing memory as well as emotions. The 'science of the mind' is inconsistent, contradictory, full of mermaid events, satiated with claims that cannot possibly relate to what is real in the real world, and are thus inaccurate and incoherent. 'Science' is always wrong. People who profess faith in 'science' are inaccurate and incoherent.

"Thus the fact of the collective unconscious is simply the psychic expression of identity of brain-structure irrespective of all racial differences."

Jung merely a priori invented his claim of "brain-structure". The 'physics' of the laws of Nature are very stable, and no law of Nature is dependent upon leaps of mermaid magic in-between points A and B. Atoms' spin rates, molecules' spin patterns, wave functions, wave patterns, amperages, voltages, decay rates, inductances, capacitances, time dilations, multi-spatial transductances, and a slew of other 'physics' exist but are never included within the a priori imaginations of philosophers'. Philosophers also still debate their man-made invention of "reductionism" while the philosophers do not so much as have an elementary school knowledge of 'physics'.

"Taken purely psychologically, it means that we have common instincts of ideation (imagination), and of action."

Jung's statement is not backed with evidence. Jung's statement is pure conjecture. Jung's statement fully ignores the laws of Nature as well as ignores where babies come from. Surely Jung had knowledge that babies come from mothers, but Jung apparently knew nothing whatsoever of pre-birth consciousness. Individuals with pre-birth memories think of Jung as having been an unlearned buffoon philosopher.

Jung repeatedly bemoaned other people's a priori inventions within his book The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, but Jung himself applied a priori inventions throughout his own writings. Jung's patterns were inconsistent, and thus incoherent.

Jung's Foreword and Commentary were, of course, based upon Richard Wilhelm's German translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower. Any errors within Wilhelm's translation would therefore mislead Jung. Jung apparently did not exert an effort to translate the Chinese texts himself — Jung did not participate in his own life — and so Jung's invented 'psychology' was merely based upon the philosophizing of his own a priori imaginations as well as upon other philosophers' hearsay.

Accuracy Versus Philosophical Natures

Competent plumbers are able to accurately sweat copper, thread steel, and glue PVC. Competent mechanics are able to accurately tune ignitions, torque heads, and rebuild everything. Competent electronic technicians are able to accurately diagnose components, solder, and create circuitry. Competent shooters are able to accurately hit the intended target up to a range that is within the equipment's capability. But in all cases, accuracy is never one-hundred percent perfect.

Philosophy is itself the act of inventing sophisms of imaginations, and thus is not able to be accurate in anything.

When using a specific firearm or bow and arrow, and used within a specific way, a specific result is achieved. The result can be observed, measured, photographed, and repeated with similar results.

No known philosopher has ever been able to achieve consistency of accuracy.

In the real world, people of real skills are able to perform with accuracy. Philosophy denies the need for accuracy, and thus has no accuracy.

Philosophers preach the claim of 'washing the heart to become empty' as a means of selfish vainglory, but people of skill create the 'circuitry' of environmental influences to create a heart that cries with extreme happiness for other people's happiness.

The philosophers believe that their animal-like 'happiness' must be identical for everyone, but people of skill possess a fully different happiness that is judged as reducing the philosophers' 'happiness' to be crude and dirty.

As an example of the differences of translations, the following are three different translations of the first sentences within The Secret of the Golden Flower. Wilhelm and Jung entered into the book while with the preconceived prejudice that the book was about Taoism. Thomas Cleary's translation is superior to Wilhelm's. The third translation is a word-per-word draft that illustrates the actual original Chinese wording. The third translation was written without a knowledge of what the book's topic was about, nor written with preconceived prejudices.

Master Lu Tzu said : That which exists through itself is called Meaning (Tao). Meaning has neither name nor force. It is the one essence, the one primordial spirit. Essence and life cannot be seen. It is contained in the Light of Heaven. The Light of Heaven cannot be seen. It is contained in the two eyes. To-day I will be your guide and will first reveal to you the secret of the Golden Flower of the Great One, and, starting from that, I will explain the rest in detail. (Wilhelm)

"1 Naturalness is called the Way. The Way has no name or form; it is just the essence, just the primal spirit. 2 Essence and life are invisible, so they are associated with sky and light. Sky and light are invisible, so they are associated with the two eyes. 3 Since ancient times, those who realized spiritual immortality all communicated their teaching verbally, transmitting it from individual to individual." (©Thomas Cleary)

'Ancestor master(Zu Shi) say "Oneself like-this speak dao-way. Dao-way not-have name mutual-photo-appearance. One nature-character and complete. One origin-source deity-god and complete. Nature-character fate not able see-meet entrust-depend-on {it-him} heaven color-light. Heaven color-light not able see-meet entrust-depend-on it both eye. Ancient immortal true-genuine mouth, mouth mutual-photo-appearance transfer-spread, transfer-spread one obtain one.' (draft translation) Note that 'mutual-photo-appearance' (相 xiang is used elsewhere (e.g. Zhong Yong) to imply something like 'portrait image', but in the current context xiang appears to fit both ideas that 'dao not-have a name that is mutual to what dao is', and 'dao not-have name, (nor) appearance'. Both are valid to what is real.

Therefore, comparing Wilhelm's version with Cleary's version and the draft version, it is easy to see that Jung would have been greatly misled into assuming things that were not present in the original text. There is no reason to assume the possibility that Wilhelm and Jung possessed any firsthand experience of the topics, and so it is already known that Jung's comments would not relate to the topics themselves.

Referencing the word 道:

"It is characteristic of the Western mind that it has no concept for Tao. The Chinese sign is made up of the sign for "head", and that for "going". Wilhelm translates Tao by Sinn (Meaning). Others translate it as " Way", "Providence", or even as "God", as the Jesuits do. This shows the difficulty. "Head" could be taken as consciousness, and "to go", as travelling a way, and then the idea would be: to go consciously, or the conscious way. This agrees with the fact that the "Light of Heaven" which "dwells between the eyes" as the "Heart of Heaven", is used synonymously with Tao. "Essence and life " are contained in the "Light of Heaven", and according to Liu Hua-yang, are the most important secrets of Tao. "Light " is the symbolical equivalent of consciousness, and the nature of consciousness is expressed by analogies with light." [Footnote: "The head is also the "seat of Heavenly Light"."]

"It is characteristic of the Western mind that it has no concept for Tao." Jung's statement is valid. It is false to believe that all Western people are identically the same, and also false to believe that all Western people are unable to mentally assemble three concepts. But it is true that most Westerners are unable to mentally assemble three thoughts. One example is of a brief experiment several years ago that proved that few people (regardless of IQ score) could read three sentences and combine the concepts from the three. The experiment was performed prior to having learned that ancient Chinese words' meanings commonly rely upon the ability to mentally assemble two, three, or more concepts simultaneously. Therefore the word "characteristic" is valid. Nevertheless, the common Western inability to mentally assemble concepts may be cultural and further solidified because of the European languages themselves having few or no words that relate to multi-faceted concepts. Modern cultures have further solidified the mental incapacity by training students to memorize unknown words rather than think.

One answer for philosophers' "unacceptably sloppy" lack of accuracy is found within a form of shared dementia that exists within all systems of belief that propound the belief that memorizing words is the one sole path to true truth knowledge. The ancient Chinese philosophers did it, the ancient Greek philosophers did it, and all modern schools still do it.

"Others translate it as "Way", "Providence", or even as "God", as the Jesuits do." 大學 Da Xue - Great Learning is one of the Four Books of Confucianism: Great Learning, Middle Use (Doctrine of the Mean), Analects, and Mencius. The first two paragraphs of Great Learning are attributed to Confucius, and are popularly considered to be the whole of Great Learning. The other paragraphs in the book are considered to be commentaries. Great Learning is a core book. Anyone who has given any serious interest into Confucius' sayings will have read Great Learning. Meaningful comments on Confucian topics have to include a history of having read Great Learning. A rough draft portion of Great Learning reads: 'Great learn, it way(道) involved-in bright-clear-understanding. Bright-clear-understanding virtue involved-in do-oneself. People involved-in stop with reach uniform-consistent understanding.' 大學 Da Xue - Great Learning explained what 道 means.

All healthy people who have firsthand experience with a topic are able to describe what 道 means. 道 of shooting, 道 of playing chess, 道 of growing food, 道 of electronic diagnostics, 道 of being the lead A-string violinist in an orchestra and as a soloist, 道 of throwing a 1969 Chevell SS 396 into a four wheel drift at 90mph to navigate a sharp curve within a 20mph speed limit zone, 道 of hiking one to three times daily 2+ miles up-down sharp 20-30' tall hills while purposefully carrying 50+ lbs and wearing 10lb military boots just for fun, 道 of winning track awards, 道 of inventing medical devices, 道 of demonstrating measurable chi, etc.. Reading books and memorizing words cannot and does not enable a person to understand what 道 means. Through his own hand and his own words, Jung proved that he had no firsthand experience with any topic relative to real-world topics, and thus he was not qualified to speak of the topic of The Secret of the Golden Flower, nor of psychology. Jung was a mere philosopher, and not a good one.

Jung's Pathological Science

"At that time it seemed unimportant to me that The Secret of the Golden Flower is not only a Taoist text of Chinese yoga but also an alchemical tract. However, a subsequent, deeper study of Latin tracts has corrected my outlook and shown me that the alchemical nature of the text is of prime significance. But this, to be sure, is not the place to go into more details about that point. I shall only emphasize the fact that it was the text of The Golden Flower that first put me in the direction of the right track. For we have in medieval alchemy the long-sought connecting-link between Gnosis and the processes of the collective unconscious, observable to us to-day in modern man."

"Neither of these views would deny the existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals alike, or that they have a significant influence on personal psychology. Yet instincts are impersonal, universally distributed, hereditary factors of a dynamic or motivating character, which very often fail so completely to reach consciousness that modern psychotherapy is faced with the task of helping the patient to become conscious of them. Moreover, the instincts are not vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed motive forces which, long before there is any consciousness, and in spite of any degree of consciousness later on, pursue their inherent goals. Consequently they form very close analogies to the archetypes, so close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behaviour."

"Taoist"? "Yoga"? "Alchemical"? "Latin tracts"? "Gnosis"? "Identical in all individuals"? "Inherited"? "A priori"? Jung kept tossing-out nouns without so much as a hint of which definition was given to the words.

Jung leaped to claim that he knew what consciousness is, as well as everything that occurs "long before there is any consciousness". Within all known books written by Jung, each have thousands of similarly false claims.

Jung was unqualified. Healthy people with firsthand experience of any real-world topic are easily able to see that Jung was unqualified.

Jung was merely one name in the boundless sea of know-nothing scholar-philosophers. Unfortunately, Jung is one of the names that state-controlled education demands that all students must believe in.

Summary

Having deleted the majority of the original article, what has been said is more than ample enough to illustrate that all known scholar-philosophers have failed miserably when attempting to translate ancient Chinese texts (nor were they able to so much as to write coherent English sentences).

Without firsthand experience, an eternity of sophisms cannot discover nor define what 道 (way) means.

Numerous ancient Chinese words rely upon the reader having had specific firsthand emotions. Without having had the specific firsthand emotions, then the person will be unable to discern what the words mean. Notable is that James Legge, Homer Dubs, and Richard Wilhelm were European missionaries to China, and yet none of them were able to usefully translate any Chinese word that related to Christian ideals of love, charity, kindness, caring, nor any other emotion. Legge, Dubs, and Wilhelm were hypocrites within their inaccuracies, and yet the public is still being given their translations to be authoritative.

The ancient Chinese language is not identical to modern European languages.

People are not identical, the same, nor equal.

Asian people are not identical, the same, nor equal to Europeans, nor equal to any other.

Non-smart people are not identical, the same, nor equal to smart people.

The laws of Nature state that nothing is identical, the same, nor equal, and yet European scholar-philosophers and state-controlled education continue demanding that things are "Identical in all individuals".

'Bright-clear-understanding virtue involved-in do-oneself.' Understanding relies upon what an individual has done oneself: firsthand experience.

Believing in and memorizing scholar-philosophers' words is not 'involved-in do-oneself'.

"Yet whoever seeks to minimize the merits of Western science is undermining the main support of the European mind. ...Scientific method must serve; it errs when it usurps a throne. ...But it is the East that has taught us another, wider, more profound, and a higher understanding, that is, understanding through life. We know this way only vaguely, as a mere shadowy sentiment culled from religious terminology..." (Jung)

Why then did Jung not apply the scientific method? Jung gave mouth to his science, but he himself hypocritically refused to bosom science. Also, Jung admitted with his own words that he only "vaguely" understood an "understanding through life", which is deeply disturbing news since he was around 72 years old when the book was published, more than ample enough time to have acquired a useful quantity of knowledge of psychology, and yet Jung exhibited less intelligence than what bright two-month-old infants exhibit and daily make use of throughout their adult lives.

The sum of The Secret of the Golden Flower book does not revolve much around what the book claims, but rather the far greater importance is of the translation and commentary being prime examples of the philosophical nature.