From ineffable DAO to selected placeholder

Or: How to Turn a Poetic Shrug into a Working Model

Start with a fog machine.
Ancient Daoism opens with the line: “The Dao that can be named is not the constant Dao.” Translation: There is something important here, but I won’t tell you what it is. This is the oldest and most successful branding trick in philosophy: sell opacity as depth. If you can’t define it, you can’t be wrong about it. Congratulations—you’ve just invented metaphysical customer lock-in.

Call ignorance wisdom.
Instead of admitting “we don’t know how reality generates,” mysticism baptises the ignorance: ineffable, eternal, beyond naming. The fog becomes sacred. The problem is not solved; it is canonised. The Dao becomes a priestly no-go zone: don’t touch, don’t question, bow respectfully.

Introduce the metaphysical remainder.
Once you split reality into “named Dao” and “real Dao,” you’ve created a permanent (dualist) remainder: a backstage pass no one can check. This is the same move as God, Brahman, Substance, Nature-with-a-capital-N. Different costumes, same trick: posit an ultimate ground that is conveniently exempt from the rules it explains.

Then do the honest upgrade: selection.
Here’s the adult version:
There is no second Dao hiding behind language. There is one generative mess. Naming doesn’t falsify it; naming selects from it. The “named Dao” is not a lie about Dao; it is Dao under constraint. What changed is not reality. What changed is the interface.

Dao as placeholder, not holy relic.
“Dao” is not a cosmic secret. It is a placeholder handle for “whatever generates this circus.” Useful? Yes. Sacred? No. It’s like writing “X” in an equation. The moment you forget that you chose “X” because you don’t know the value, you’ve turned a variable into a god.

Mystics sell transcendence; engineers sell tools.
The mystic says: You cannot name Dao.
The engineer says: Fine. Then stop pretending you’ve accessed something special. You’ve just refused to model the system.
Ineffability is not enlightenment; it is model refusal with incense.

Naming doesn’t corrupt Dao; it limits your manoeuvrability.
When you name something, you constrain how you can act toward it. Call the world “sinful,” and you get guilt machines. Call it “Brahman,” and you get bliss machines. Call it “Nature,” and you get management machines. Same underlying mess, different user interfaces. The cost of naming is loss of flexibility, not loss of truth.

Every metaphysical ground is the same scam.
Dao, Substance, Brahman, God, Nature, Universal Procedure—each is a placeholder that forgot it was chosen. Each claims to be the origin while quietly exempting itself from origin questions. This is not deep philosophy; it’s conceptual money laundering.

Final compression (the druid’s verdict).
The Dao that can be named is not “less real.”
It is just Dao after you’ve pressed a button.
Mysticism is what happens when you worship the button and forget you pressed it.

From ineffable DAO to selected placeholder, ADV

The Law of Forgotten Selection

Sat-chit-ananda: How to turn Reality into a wellness project

All Finn’s blogs

The Druid Finn’s homepage