LOL, do not worry, aren’t we all often confused, it is just that some are too arrogant to admit it.
I believe that Tao argues that these words only symbolize the rose. You can call a rose a petunia, or any other name if you choose, but it will have no effect on the rose itself. That is, if I am understanding this concept. The number 1 only symbolized one, the amount of something, a car, a house, etc.
I could be wrong, as I am novice regarding this concept, but from what I understand Tao wants us to connect with the flower, look at its beauty, enjoy its fragrance, watch the humming bird enjoy its nector, not analyze it.
Yes, I am a big fan of categories, statistics, valid support, and am a very linear person not prone to abstract thinking. At the moment, I am simply attempting to understand the concept, not support it in any way.
What humans currently “know” will change, evolve as time passes. At the moment the physics of the universe, Newton’s gravitational theory appears not to work in spiral universes. That is, what we know evidently does not work in other universes. I believe it is MOND that is challenge the very foundation of what we “know” in physics.
Also it is important to realize that the history we “know” differes quite a bit from Middle-Eastern, Japanese, Russian, German, British History. We “know” Benedict Arnold as a traitor, but to the Brits he is a British Patriot and hero. Am I a relativist, not really, but I can understand the other views even if I do not accept them. Many accept the conspiracy theories floating around. They “know” Bush or the USA attacked herself. I do not “know” this and disagree. Do I understand where they are coming from. To a certain degree Yes, but I do not accept their claims.
If memory serves, this is precisely what Tao does. He went to a martial arts instructor who did not speak for a very long time, I believe it was months. Then one day asked “What did you learn?” That is, we can learn a great deal by observation, listening, reflecting without speaking. Much as a child learns how to behave by simply observing her or his parent.
Is it wrong? Not to me. People are free to categorize or not to. Trust me, I often categorize people by the words they use. You were put into the maternal category simply from the language you employ. Am I wrong? That is, my linquistics classes proved very insightful regarding human behavior. You can tell a great deal by what a person says or doesn’t say. At lease in my POV.
I do not believe this is the point. Do we really know enough to categorize the very beautiful but dangerous aspects of nature. What do we really “know” regarding how a dog or cat sees. Not much. We make assumption based on research, try to know, but what do we really know. What do we really know about anti-matter, black holes, black matter, etc. Not much.
Hum, did you learn that your cat has a protein allergy by talking to the cat, or by observation? I believe this is what the Taoists are talking about.
But we also learn by the unspoken word, the emotions that occur when listening to music. Can we categorize music, and the emotions it brings. We were watching PBS Boston Pops last night. They had a wonderful fiddler on who had me smiling one moment with an Irish Jig, then tearful with a wonderful Celtic elegy tune. Sure we can try to categorize these emotions, happy, sad, etc., but these are not the actual emotions.
Aspacia quotes:
Again, I am simply attempting to understand regarding Tao, and did not claim to support it. Frankly, I do not care if other groan. Hell, I had a death threat from one poster, and one told me to stick a dildo up my ass because I said he, and most of the Brits I have dealt with were arrogrant. That is, I found their buttons and pushed. I can play hardball if I want to. They only made themselves look like idiots.
I enjoy tentative’s insights, and the insights from others. I am here to learn.
My cosmology may be off – since I am speaking from a 13th century Confucian movement, albeit one that borrowed heavily from Daoist cosmologies, is that reality is, essentially, the interaction between yin and yang.
So, from that perspective, the world and reality are objectively relative.
Here is a page that explains the Taiji tu (the diagram of supreme polarity):
The only thing I can say to you here aspacia, I have met the “sage”, and it is an entirely different creature, human, but not human.
The Abbit of Huashan was corporeal. Until he moved. Then he was something “other”. He was human. Until his breathing became apparent. Then was air.
I could spend a lifetime explaining what it is like to meet something “other”, but it would never be the correct picture. There is an amazement and awe with a creature like that, because you are at once confused, because it appears like you; then it moves, or does something that all humans do, but it isn’t done like any human would.
It’s been experienced from the wrong end, now we can wait to see if it can be accomplished. Then if it happens, we can send emails … LOL.
Polarity, paradox, dichotomy are how the human mind equates the fragmentations of a perceived reality, into a viewable and discernable picture.
We do not view a continual process … we see the small pieces, categorize them, then assume the rest so as to create “reality”.
Objective reality is for those rare beings that are only concerned with the process as it is, not how they would choose to perceive it, to make it fit an assumed mind image.
Thank you Mastriani; that is what I would have guessed, but I don’t want to assume things, especially about a subject so geographically and culturally foreign.
It’s not particular to Tao"ist" thought Alun. Discernment, at the level we are speaking of, is for the rarest of the rare, and then, the “form” that the discernment proceeds from, means little.
Although in my experience a western thinker doesn’t tend to think such a thing as that kind of discernment is possible, and usually won’t view opposites as integral to their perspective in such a way either.
Ok I apologize, chapter three Tanslation and summary starting on page 77. Really though It is the only section that says the word chapter before the number, serious I actually opened the book to look ,
Only a very passing familiarity. I have read it, literally, once. And certainly not with the attention to detail that would allow me to get too much out of it.
I’ve been working more on the Shijing, because of its prominence in Confucian texts as well as its approachability. The yijing is probably next, but that is going to be a few years in the future, I imagine.
My mental image of a sage is a that of a prophet, but dissimilar in that this otherworldliness stems from years of meditation, mental and physical control, not God speaking to her or him. Our Lady of Fatima is an example of this. Mary spoke to the chilren, and they predicted WWI. They lived pious lives until their deaths. No worldly goods, etc.
Remember, I am trying to make a connection with what I know and do come from the Judeo-Christian matrix.
Unfortunately, I am also seeing a possibly charismatic person who may use this control for ulterior motives. The sarin gas episode in Japan for instance. David Carresh (sp) in Wacko Texas, etc.
Did the sage you met try to control others for power?
Gads miss one day and you fall behind, tooo much brainy stuff for me on a sunday, its a day for garden work and BBQs and bath day for kids. Perhaps those last two beers last night went ovr the top anyway
He was an Abbit aspacia. His only reason for being was synchronicity of process. No, he would never have used his position or knowledge to the detriment of others, his nature was “beyond” human basal impropriety.
Well you should be a cynic, it is a prudent choice.
Again, back to the Abbit: “Those whose being vibrates within Tao, appear magical to others. Many have tried to emulate this appearance, and amaze the foolish with parlor tricks and energy shows. The most pure of ability are rarely seen, if ever at all, you would never know they exist. They have no need of exhibition or attention, it only brings troubles.”
