The Two Vacuous Grounds of Daoism & Spinozism

Dao and Substance as Placeholder Ontologies in Daoism and Spinoza

By Victor Langheld

1. Structural Isomorphism: Dao–De and Substance–Mode

Daoism (Dao–De)	Spinoza (Substance–Modes)	Structural Function
Dao (道)	Substance (Substantia)	Named absolute ground of reality
De (德)	Modes (modi)	Local, particularised manifestations
“The Way that can be spoken is not the constant Way” (DDJ 1)	“By substance I understand that which is in itself and conceived through itself” (Ethics I, Def. 3)	Definition by negation / tautology
Dao generates the ten thousand things	Substance expresses itself as modes	Claimed generativity without mechanism

Key point:
Both systems posit a single ontological ground and then describe particular things as expressions/applications of that ground — but neither specifies how generation actually occurs.

They provide naming schemas, not procedural grammars.

2. Dao as Vacuous Placeholder

2.1 The Dao Is Defined by Non-Definition

Daoist texts repeatedly insist:

“The Dao that can be spoken is not the constant Dao.”

This produces a structurally vacuous placeholder:

· Dao is:

o not this

o not that

o prior to names

o ineffable

o ungraspable

o empty (xu)

This does not define a generative mechanism.
It merely blocks inquiry into mechanism.

2.2 Dao as Rhetorical Ground

Dao functions as:

· a terminating explanation

· a semantic stop-sign

· a linguistic placeholder for ‘whatever makes things happen’

Formally:

Dao = “That in virtue of which emergence happens”
But with no specification of constraints, no references, operations, transitions, or production rules.

Thus Dao = named ignorance with ontological prestige.

3. De as Vacuous Application Placeholder

De is typically glossed as:

· “virtue”

· “power”

· “efficacy”

· “particularized Dao”

But De is not defined operationally either.

De functions structurally as:

“The Dao appearing locally in this thing”

But again:

· No rules of differentiation

· No generative grammar

· No constraint logic

· No emergence protocol

So:

Dao : De :: Ground : Appearance
but both remain non-procedural.

De does not explain how one local pattern differs from another.
It merely labels that they differ.

4. Spinoza’s Substance as Vacuous Placeholder

4.1 Substance Is Defined Tautologically

Spinoza defines Substance as:

“That which is in itself and conceived through itself.”

This definition gives:

· No mechanism of generation

· No process of differentiation

· No constraint grammar

· No emergence rule-set

Substance is a metaphysical constant, not a generative engine.

Like Dao, Substance is:

· posited as necessary

· asserted as self-explanatory

· immune to further analysis

Hence:

Substance = “That in virtue of which anything is at all”
But again, no generative specification.

5. Modes as Vacuous Application Placeholders

Modes are defined as:

“That which exists in something else and is conceived through something else.”

But:

· How does Substance produce modes?

· What are the transformation rules?

· What is the mechanism of individuation?

· What enforces boundaries between modes?

Spinoza does not say.

Modes are:

· described as expressions

· not derived by any algorithm

· not generated by any constraint grammar

So:

Mode = “Substance appearing locally”
exactly parallel to:

De = “Dao appearing locally”

Both are descriptive labels, not generative explanations.

6. Shared Structural Failure: No Theory of Emergence

Both systems suffer from the same ontological defect:

They assert emergence but do not explain emergence.

They provide:

· metaphysical naming (Dao / Substance)

· phenomenological description (De / Mode)

· moral or practical counsel (wu-wei / conatus, ethics)

But they lack:

· constraint rules

· transformation operators

· differentiation grammar

· individuation mechanics

· collision or interaction models

· stability conditions

· breakdown conditions

In modern terms:

They have ontology without dynamics.

7. Why This Matters: Placeholder Ontology vs Generative Ontology

Daoism and Spinoza both perform the same philosophical move:

1. Postulate a single absolute ground

2. Call local realities “expressions” of that ground

3. Refuse to specify the production logic

4. Convert explanatory failure into metaphysical depth

This yields:

A closed metaphysical vocabulary
without
An open generative model

Hence:

· Dao and Substance are semantic sinks

· De and Modes are descriptive glosses

· Emergence is asserted, not modelled

8. Precise Compression

Daoism and Spinoza are structurally isomorphic placeholder ontologies.

· Dao ≈ Substance
→ Vacuous named ground

· De ≈ Modes
→ Vacuous named applications

· Emergence is rhetorically affirmed

· Generation is procedurally absent

They deliver:

A metaphysical story of “One expressing as Many”
without:
A functional account of how the One produces the Many.

9. Final Verdict

Daoism and Spinoza provide ontological poetry rather than emergence theory.

Their core concepts function as:

· Dao / Substance = unanalysed ground-token

· De / Mode = unanalysed output-token

Both are:

High-grade metaphysical placeholders
standing in for a missing theory of generative constraint.

This is precisely why both traditions invite endless commentary but resist technical reconstruction:
their foundations are named, not specified.

The survival benefit of the vacuous placeholder

From ineffable DAO to selected placeholder, ADV

The Law of Forgotten Selection

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

Home