Burger King
noname
You can, you know. Have it your way. But you can't have it with
pickes and without pickles. Those are mutually exclusive. Do you
want the pickes, or not? What'll you have buddy, a world that derives
from the material, or a world that manifests from the mystery? Hurry
it up, this ain't the post office here, we got people waiting here.
--
"... Be at one with the dust of the Earth. This is primal union."
{:-])))
>Their motto is "Have it your way!"
>
>You can, you know. Have it your way. But you can't have it with
>pickes and without pickles.
Of course you can.
You can have it half and half
or one with and one without
or any number of combinations
and permutations.
> Those are mutually exclusive.
Not at all.
Taoism suggests they are implicative.
Yin and yang do not exclude each other.
They include each other, suggest each other,
turn into one another, etc..
> Do you
>want the pickes, or not?
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
> What'll you have buddy, a world that derives
>from the material, or a world that manifests from the mystery?
Views derive from a point of reference.
Is there really a world that can be spoken of
without any frame of reference? Hmmm.
noname
Whatever suits ya.
noname
Let me rephrase that: Far be it from me to get in front of your
desire to fantasize. If you want black to be white and white to be
black, enjoy yourself.
{:-])))
Day is not night, nor is night day.
However, night turns into day
just as day turns into night.
The two imply each other.
You might wish to assert
that one cannot be both in the sunshine
and in the shade at the same time.
Yet, such a feat can easily be done.
A table or chair may feel very sturdy
to many of the things that sit upon it.
At the same time it is full of space
and is more empty than anything else,
or so it could be viewed as such.
To behold or experience an event
such that it is deemed to be a mystery
may suggest unknowns of various degree.
In the material world
events are said to take place
and a great many factors are cited
to explain the cause or causes.
To discover every and all the factors
that add up or multiply to produce
any given event, could be impossible.
Ultimately a thing might be said to be
a mystery in the final analysis.
A thoroughgoing materialist
might like to explain away all mysteries.
In theory, hypothetically, that sounds as if
it could be possible. The probabilities
are much less than certain however.
Too many variables are involved.
Another facet of descriptions may show how
without things, there can be no mystery.
The two facets are not separate
nor are they exhaustive. The gem is
far more than a simple coin with
two outer sides plus an edge
surrounding what's inside.
Heads and tails are
not separate from the material
of which the coin is comprised.
Its outside surfaces are the same
material as are its inside.
To go outside the outside
and describe environments in which
a coin may be flipped and rolled
is to go a little beyond the coin.
-flapping wings
noname
A thing can only have one source, no more.
abstrus...@gmail.com
> >that one cannot be both in the sunshine
> >and in the shade at the same time.
> >Yet, such a feat can easily be done.
Your answer is not fitting.
>A thing can only have one source, no more.
>
This is absolutely false.
noname
>> >You might wish to assert
>> >that one cannot be both in the sunshine
>> >and in the shade at the same time.
>> >Yet, such a feat can easily be done.
>
>Your answer is not fitting.
Your quoting is not correct, that is Jay's comment.
>>A thing can only have one source, no more.
>>
>
>This is absolutely false.
You remind me of a roach.
{:-])))
>A thing can only have one source, no more.
Interesting assertion.
Paradigms, I suppose, may be any.
A child could be said to have two sources,
a mother and a father, usually.
A lake might be fed by many rivers
but you may say it is only the mountains
which are the source of its configuration.
Without rain, there would be no lake.
Therefore, rain would be the only source.
Without the oceans, there would be no rain.
Is the ocean the only source of the lake?
Without mountains and rains, would the lake
still be found in its resting place? Hmmm.
The hurricane's only source, naturally,
would have been a butterfly?
{:-])))
>> >You might wish to assert
>> >that one cannot be both in the sunshine
>> >and in the shade at the same time.
>> >Yet, such a feat can easily be done.
>
>Your answer is not fitting.
Your citation is incomplete.
What is it that my response doesn't fit?
Under cover, there is shade.
Emerging from beneath the shade,
half of one's body might be in the sun.
At dawn and dusk, twilight
could be said to be both day and night
or it could be said to be neither.
Statements are made, at times, for a reason.
Noname seems to be drifting into absolutism
of some sort or other. Taoism has been said
to be a bit more relativistic on the whole
or at least in part.
A thing can be both yin or yang
when compared to some other thing.
Does that put Burger King in a pickle?
noname
>noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>>A thing can only have one source, no more.
>
>Interesting assertion.
>Paradigms, I suppose, may be any.
>
>A child could be said to have two sources,
>a mother and a father, usually.
A child could be said to have two parents. A child has one source.
>The hurricane's only source, naturally,
>would have been a butterfly?
Its cause might have been a butterfly, but not its source.
You might say its source was the physical, the cause random.
I would say something else.
You might say that the source of all thought was brain chemistry.
I might say that the source of all brain chemistry was thought.
You might want to play chicken/egg word games with it.
I will say that the source of the manifestation is the mystery. The
mystery is the source. Electrons and protons and all the other stuff
science talks about is part of the manifestation; it is an effect not
a cause. Physical reality is an effect not a cause. Physical reality
is not the source.
That should be clear enough. Some people view physical reality as the
source; they are basically done from the start, the mind for them is
nothing but transient electrical impulses, they are powerless within
physical reality aside from what their oscilloscopes and other gizmos
may do for them.
You can have it your way but you can't have it both ways; either
physical reality is the source and consciousness is merely a transient
effect, or the mystery is the source of the manifestation and physical
reality is an effect.
noname
>Noname seems to be drifting into absolutism
>of some sort or other. Taoism has been said
>to be a bit more relativistic on the whole
>or at least in part.
So Taoism is a gutless muddle of indeterminates?
Not for me thanks, I'll just mind the Tao and spare the yeggs.
wanderriver
On Jan 25, 9:53 am, noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> "{:-])))" <s...@the.ed-line> wrote:
> >noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> >>noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
accordingly, if that is how you view a thing.
many do...believe the 10k appear from one source.
As in my particular form of Taoism, we believe in the twin forces
yin/yang/duality/ born from chaos of Tao.
the 10K or things, creatures,
manifestations arrive from twin forces....
tao is not labeled... as it is a
mystery...a blending of nothing and everything, perhaps...
who knows...
so all things arrive from mystery...the unknown... through the twin
recognized forces of yin/yang...heaven/earth
duality.
> --
> "... Be at one with the dust of the Earth. This is primal union."- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
wanderriver
yin/yang are twin forces within the one thing as well as without the
one thing
duality exists in the world and within each person, according to some
Taoists...
the dark is not considered sin and the light is not considered without
sin...
so, though many Taoists believe in duality...it is not good and evil
in any sense.
it is ... just because it is...
destruction and creation exist together...
death supports life
life creates itself
and then decays itself.
tranquility in chaos
power of the Tao
such simple pleasures
flowing
{:-])))
>"{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>>noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>A thing can only have one source, no more.
>>
>>Interesting assertion.
>>Paradigms, I suppose, may be any.
>>
>>A child could be said to have two sources,
>>a mother and a father, usually.
>
>A child could be said to have two parents. A child has one source.
What might that be?
>>The hurricane's only source, naturally,
>>would have been a butterfly?
>
>Its cause might have been a butterfly, but not its source.
Tao?
>You might say its source was the physical, the cause random.
I'd opt for sources and causes
rather than trying to find just one.
>I would say something else.
I've read something about how from one
arise two, and from two, three, and from three
arise ten thousand things. Sounds to me as if
there could be said to be a process.
A block can be chopped any number of ways.
Ten thousand things could be said to have
three sources. Three had two, and two had one.
It's also said that being arises from nonbeing.
Kuo Hsiang said
along the lines of how
that since nonbeing is the source
things arise from themselves spontaneously.
>You might say that the source of all thought was brain chemistry.
I might.
If I did there would probably be
at least one reason, or source, of me making
such a statement. Can't imagine why I'd say it.
>I might say that the source of all brain chemistry was thought.
And the source of all thought is?
>You might want to play chicken/egg word games with it.
That could be entertaining for a while.
>I will say that the source of the manifestation is the mystery. The
>mystery is the source.
An interesting source, "the mystery."
Sounds rather like a postulate.
Or maybe a presumption.
A mystery is an unknown.
To say everything has a source
but you don't know what it is
doesn't really say much.
If you don't know what it is
then how do you know it's the source?
How do you know there aren't lots
and lots of mysteries? Many sources?
> Electrons and protons and all the other stuff
>science talks about is part of the manifestation; it is an effect not
>a cause. Physical reality is an effect not a cause. Physical reality
>is not the source.
Okay.
>That should be clear enough.
What is clear to me are words, paradigms,
carvings, choppings, differentiations.
> Some people view physical reality as the
>source; they are basically done from the start, the mind for them is
>nothing but transient electrical impulses, they are powerless within
>physical reality aside from what their oscilloscopes and other gizmos
>may do for them.
I suppose some do.
>You can have it your way but you can't have it both ways;
I can if I choose to.
>either
>physical reality is the source and consciousness is merely a transient
>effect, or the mystery is the source of the manifestation and physical
>reality is an effect.
Is light a particle or a wave?
Is Earth a big planet or a small blue dot?
From Mars, it's a little dot. From the Moon
it's pretty big. So what is it really?
I see things from various perspectives.
Feel free to see things only one way
if you feel as though you must, or if that is
the one and only way you can see things.
wanderriver
On Jan 27, 12:16�am, "{:-])))" <s...@the.ed-line> wrote:
> noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> >"{:-])))" <s...@the.ed-line> wrote:
> >>noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
> >>>A thing can only have one source, no more.
>
> >>Interesting assertion.
> >>Paradigms, I suppose, may be any.
>
> >>A child could be said to have two sources,
> >>a mother and a father, usually.
>
> >A child could be said to have two parents. A child has one source.What might that be?
>
> >>The hurricane's only source, naturally,
> >>would have been a butterfly?
>
> >Its cause might have been a butterfly, but not its source.Tao?
>
> >You might say its source was the physical, the cause random.I'd opt for sources and causes
> rather than trying to find just one.
>
> >I would say something else.I've read something about how from one
> arise two, and from two, three, and from three
> arise ten thousand things. Sounds to me as if
> there could be said to be a process.
>
> A block can be chopped any number of ways.
> Ten thousand things could be said to have
> three sources. Three had two, and two had one.
>
> It's also said that being arises from nonbeing.
>
> Kuo Hsiang said
> along the lines of how
> that since nonbeing is the source
> things arise from themselves spontaneously.
>
> >You might say that the source of all thought was brain chemistry.I might.
> If I did there would probably be
> at least one reason, or source, of me making
> such a statement. Can't imagine why I'd say it.
>
> >I might say that the source of all brain chemistry was thought.And the source of all thought is?
>
> >You might want to play chicken/egg word games with it.That could be entertaining for a while.
>
> >I will say that the source of the manifestation is the mystery. The
> >mystery is the source.An interesting source, "the mystery."
>
> Sounds rather like a postulate.
> Or maybe a presumption.
>
> A mystery is an unknown.
> To say everything has a source
> but you don't know what it is
> doesn't really say much.>>
how unenlightened, eh? :)
> If you don't know what it is
> then how do you know it's the source?
> How do you know there aren't lots
> and lots of mysteries? Many sources?>>
Too many mysteries can either lead to more or less knowin' or
unknowin'
> > Electrons and protons and all the other stuff
> >science talks about is part of the manifestation; it is an effect not
> >a cause. Physical reality is an effect not a cause. Physical reality
> >is not the source.Okay.
>
> >That should be clear enough.What is clear to me are words, paradigms,
> carvings, choppings, differentiations.
>
> > Some people view physical reality as the
> >source; they are basically done from the start, the mind for them is
> >nothing but transient electrical impulses, they are powerless within
> >physical reality aside from what their oscilloscopes and other gizmos
> >may do for them.I suppose some do.
>
> >You can have it your way but you can't have it both ways;I can if I choose to.
>
> >either
> >physical reality is the source and consciousness is merely a transient
> >effect, or the mystery is the source of the manifestation and physical
> >reality is an effect.Is light a particle or a wave?
>
> Is Earth a big planet or a small blue dot?
> From Mars, it's a little dot. From the Moon
> it's pretty big. So what is it really?>>
it could become as mars, perhaps; it could become as pluto, perhaps;
it could become as Jupiter, perhaps; possibilities are endless in
scenarios produced by consciousness produced by electric impulses,
produced from magnetic fields of waves and particles, produced by
micro and micro more and micro more or less downward, spiraling,
upward, backward, forward? Tis a small mystery of great size.
> I see things from various perspectives.>>
zzzzz is a perspective of various sizes....
> Feel free to see things only one way
> if you feel as though you must, or if that is
> the one and only way you can see things.>>
the eyes see through a lens of variables...leading to murky
waters...of the many kin...perhaps...even... absolutely. Tis odd that
way...a paradox of tao...
mathameticians even can't solve the crooked way of micro
magnetics...or lack thereof...of the whopper mac....but they sure have
a ball of a time trying...
round de spheres and back
tai chi
wu wei
wei wu wei
tai chi
wu wei
rc
> A thing can only have one source, no more.
So your not a thing then, because you obviously come from two sources,
namely a mother and father.
noname
wanderriver
On Jan 28, 3:51?am, noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> rc <non...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2007-01-25 08:53:28 -0600, noname <nos...@nospam.nospam> said:
>
> >> A thing can only have one source, no more.
>
> >So your not a thing then, because you obviously come from two sources,
> >namely a mother and father.Parents are seen as contributors but they are not the source.>>
heaven and earth are of and in Tao...the differentiated is the same as
the undifferentiated. the mystery of formless is manifested into
form...therefore the 10K are in essence mystery...the shen being the
spirit...in our mom and pop's case, the human spirit, the qi, the
energy force of life.
..the Tao...is of heaven and of earth...it is transcendental and also
immanent...it prevades the earth... in its mundaneness, it is as much
a mystery and is as sacred as the transcendental ... is to others.
tis a paradox...