[MD] dark night

[118]

Ah, yes.

Now if darkness is within darkness then such darkness cannot be dark
can it?  Otherwise how could it be "within darkness".  The point is to
point away from darkness, not towards it.

Think about it; use your imagination.  Think of double negatives.

Mark

On 6/27/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> 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" <valkyr at att.net> 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 <jhmau at comcast.net> 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" <valkyr at att.net> 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
>