[MD] dark night

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Marsha,

DQ from a long time ago.


On 6/27/12 10:51 AM, "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