Hi Ham, The story so far: He said that dmb said that she said that Steve said that he thought that she said what she said because he didn't want her to say what dmb had said about what Steve had said about her creating the One thing which when divided into two had to be shared in three ways since there were two boys and one girl.
No, this is not part of the Tao, it is part of a book called Knots. There are over 100 translations of the Tao into English. It is the most translated text other than the Bible and the Bagavad Gita. (notice that the Koran does not rank). Any translation is always difficult, and I do not speak Chinese. I used the word "creates" so that I would not confuse. However, I can't please everyone. A better word to use would be "begets". Then we start with the Tao begets the One. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > G'day Mark -- > > >> Hi Ham, >> Wrath is sometimes good if it is not misplaced. In a recent >> post to Marsha, I reiterated my position on Quality as "Unity". >> For this I use the analogy from the Tao Te Ching. That is, >> Quality creates the One which creates the two... So, in my >> opinion, Quality can not equal Reality. > > I am not a scholar of Taoism, and find these "insights" rather confusing. > Whatever "creates" is primary to what is created. If, as you say, Quality > creates the One, then Quality is the primary source, whether you call it > Quality or Reality. I tend to follow the epistemological approach which > views Quality (Value) as an emotional, aesthetic, or moral appraisalor > judgment. According to this epistemology, there is no Value in the absence > of a sensible agent, thus refuting the premise that Value is primary. I present Quality as a primary source in the same way as Essence presents itself. I know we do not have the same definition of Quality, but you know what mine is, and I know what your definition of Essence is. So, Not Value, Yes Quality. > > The breakdown of these terms occurs only in existence where the finite > intellect makes such semantic distinctions. From the absolute perspective > there are no distinctions, since Essential Oneness is the unity of Value, > Sensibility, and Potentiality. [Mark] The breakdown occurs before that, and results in semantic distinctions. I like the triad you propose for Essential Oneness. In my opinion, Potentiality is primary, that is, it can be called the one. Sensibility comes next, and finally Value, to complete the Godhead. From these three "comes the myriad of things" (Tao). > > Incidentally, I bear no grudge or "wrath" against those who are persuaded by > other ideologies, whether they're liberals, agnostics, atheists, or > Qualityists. (As an octogenarian, I learned long ago that there are all > kinds of people, and none of them can be expected to hold precisely the same > worldview that I do.) [Mark] By comparison, my worldview is still somewhat juvenile. I have lived on 4 separate continents about equal portions of my life and I can be very accommodating to different worldviews. > > A while back somebody here introduced the term "co-dependent arising" which > I think expresses the emergence of Self and Other without the "independent" > qualifier. I reserve "independence" for the autonomous will once the > individuated Self is created. For me, the primary dichotomy is > Sensibility/Otherness, which may be variously interpreted as > Awareness/Beingness, Subject/Object, or Negate/Essent. [Mark] Yes, co-dependent arising is one of the fundamental tenants of Buddhism. This is what the Buddha used to achieve enlightenment. As presented before, there are problems with this, the major one being (imo) determinism. You are beginning to sound like that German philosopher who was pro-Nazi, and was always talking about time and being. I guess that is better than talking about Nothingness like an even more exasperating French guy. Bu let me take a look at this. Awareness = Subject = Negate, and, Beingness = Object = Essent. This appears to create a dichotomy between the Self, and the Other. The only problem that I have is in considering Beingness to be Other. Perhaps you can enlighten me there. > > The point that needs to be made here is that the terms "levels", "patterns", > and "forms" all allude to the differentiated (contrapositional?) mode of > existence. They should not be taken to mean that subjects and objects, time > and space, and good and bad are unreal or "illusory''. Plurality and > contrariety are the very attributes of which our differentiated world is > constructed. They constitute our experiential reality, and to ephemeralize > them demeans our role as value-sensible agents. > [Mark] Yes, I am with you there. I like the word Forms. Another word that I use often in this forum is Appearances or Expressions. I think you are on to something here. Maybe not for MoQ, but for me. Thank you for that. Compadre Mark > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
