[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel

8 June:

[Bo] before
> Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality =
> X without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As
> not to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself 
> to this issue.  
 
[Krimel]
> Ok, the Pollyanna in me is forcing me to respond but she really hurt my
> arm. Reality=X in the language of pseudo-math could only mean that
> Reality is undefined. Whatever we say about it misses something and
> perhaps something important. 

You escaped at once.  My "X" was just to indicate reality being 
something - TAO for example. That it is undefined and nothing can be 
said about it goes without saying, but we have the term TAO. What 
improvement did it bring in its wake? Was there anyone before Lao 
Tsu who claimed that there was no Tao? Don't bite my head off, I 
would like to know.  

> Reality in the Capital R sense isn't just undefined it is utterly
> meaningless. 

Well what did Lao Tsu mean by TAO if not the source from which 
everything emanates or are "carvings" out of?

> Meaning is something we humans make out of Reality. 

Great insight, never knew that ;-)  But now try to stick to the issue. 

Bodvar