Yes, good ol' Love, with its endless wonderfulness. Problem is that 'Love' is an abstraction, a generalization that never reaches down to the particular experience. It is a concept, and like all concepts, it always remains universal, and never precisely matches the experience. Hard to argue against 'Love', though, isn't it? What the world needs now is love, sweet love...
Should be: In the beginning was the Value! - That would be the experience. On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:09 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the good ol' Tao Te Ching, in its endless translations. > > Let us do some word substitution. Let us change Tao into Love. > > The Love that can be named is not Love > Naming a love creates particular loves > > Both Love and its manifestations come from the same place > This place can be called light > Light within light. > > So, it is not so much what words are used in this tranlation, it is > how the words are used. We can name many manifestations of Quality, > for this is simply the description to Maia. That is, the world of > appearances. However, any appearance must have a source for it to > appear. This source is (for simple semantic reasons) Quality. > This is one reason why I have stated that Quality and Tao cannot be > the same thing. For Quality brings in the mystery and Maia are the > manifestations. This could also be translated as DQ being the > mystery, and SQ being the manifestations. These are the two which > come from the one (Quality). However, according to the Tao te Ching, > from the Tao comes the one (Quality). Therefore the Tao is one step > removed from Quality. > > There are many words to translate Tao. It can be called The Way, > which is not really any thing. It can also be called The Reason, > which is also not any thing. I like to call it The Intention, which > is also not any thing. In this way, I would say that The Intention > leads to Quality. Quality is an attribute of The Intention. > > Please note, that such Intention does not need an "intender". There > is no reason to bring in any sort of deity. However, having said > that, the bible states that In the begining was the Word. This word > can also be called God. But it is not the God which shows up in > paintings, it is more of a Tao kind of God. The West has simply > screwed this all up due to its dependence on dialectic materialism to > make sense of everything. Remember, I am not religious, and I have no > use for Aristotelian Theism. > > Enough said... > > Cheers, > Mark > > On 6/26/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Tao Te Ching >> >> Chapter One >> >> The tao that can be told >> is not the eternal Tao >> The name that can be named >> is not the eternal Name. >> >> The unnamable is the eternally real. >> Naming is the origin >> of all particular things. >> >> Free from desire, you realize the mystery. >> Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. >> >> Yet mystery and manifestations >> arise from the same source. >> This source is called darkness. >> >> Darkness within darkness. >> The gateway to all understanding. >> >> (Written by Lao-tzu >> From a translation by S. Mitchell) >> >> >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha and All, >>> >>> "Fundamental nature" is a mouthful! Is it a definition for reality? I >>> conceptualize "logic" as being unable to describe evolution in terms of >>> SQ/DQ, defined/indefinable reality. >>> >>> Indefinable reality is individualized DQ and can only be described in >>> analogical terms. The acceptance of indefinable DQ reality reveals >>> sentience DQ/SQ. >>> >>> In the past S/O was proposed as a logical (metaphysical) base. This >>> placed >>> sentience in a horrible bind to define all of reality. This made >>> definition >>> equal to a mathematical certainty, denying evolution. Creation was more >>> acceptable than metaphysics. Metaphysics is logic beyond mathematics. >>> Evolution is logical as levels in existence. >>> >>> Pirsig saw that there are indefinable emotions like love. "Definition" >>> is >>> not a metaphysical term but a physical term. Something in our experience >>> remains indefinable DQ. I do not like the term "fundamental nature". I >>> prefer "evolution" as levels in existence. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On 6/25/12 1:31 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> But under it all, the fundamental nature of sq is DQ. >>> >>> >>> >> 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 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
