Hi Marsha, DQ from a long time ago.
On 6/27/12 10:51 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > It is a beautiful translation, isn't it? I thought the references to > darkness made it particularly poignant. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: > >> Beautiful: >> >> >> On 6/26/12 1:17 PM, "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 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
