Daniel

unpopular opinion: It's not called a 'soda' it's a 'pop'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_soft_drinks_in_the_United_States#Pop

I had never heard that song before. They have a huge library. There's a wiki page on it which was an interesting read. It's the B side of the "Let it Be" single. So, if someone bought "Let it Be", on the flip side would be this bizarre silly song. Apparently the song is intended to be comedy, and was inspired by John seeing a phone book with the song title on it. And they wrote a song about it. In the wiki article, it describes some unique element of the chord changes. I listened for them, but, my ear is not good enough to detect anything but what sounds like a standard 4 chord progression over a common rhythm. The marble-mouth lyrics at the very end are my favorite part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Know_My_Name_(Look_Up_the_Number)

Got it. Thanks!

.

.

.

If so... the interesting part is "上義" and "上禮". These are both You-Yi-De? Which is defined as lower-virtue. But they are both "upper". So, either a negative valence needs to be applied to 義 and 禮 in the translation choice for the words themself, or the idea of lifting up 義 and 禮 is actually creating a negative consequence and that is part of the lesson being taught. That's an understanding or interpretation that needs to be held in thought while reading it. It could be that it's an inverse proportionality, a paradox, where lifting these qualities is actually producing a negative effect. Or, it could be that in the extreme 義 and 禮 produce a negative effect and these need to be middle-path qualities. And in fact lowering them also produces a negative consequence. Then, there is Shi-De. After that. It's after 義 and 禮 are lifted? Perhaps to an extreme, or perhaps lifted at all. Which causes the obvious visible conflict ( wild gestures and such ), or perhaps an internal non-visible conflict. It's chaos either way, internally or externally.

Speaking for myself, yes, I see what you mean. I'm seeing it differently. It looks to me, as an amatuer outsider, that the text is defining terms. And yes, the paradox is beautiful. True and beautiful. If it is defining terms, then the same pattern in lines 1 and 2 are repeated in 3 and 4. Also, 1 and 3 are a pair, and 2 and 4 are a pair. The author at this very beginning of the chapter seems to be saying, higher-virtue is not an overt-action ( You-De ). No, it is not. And the then the author says basically the same thing inverted, lower-virtue is not emptying-deconstructed-action (Wu-De). No, it is not. Then it spends some time describing what upper-virtue is. It's Wu-Yi-De. And gives examples. All of which should be understood as Wu-Yi-De. And conversely it tells us what the lower-virtue is. You-Yi-De. It's just defining terms. In line 3, it says, the lower-virtue is not Shi-De. Then later it tells us what Shi-De is. It's a cascading process which leads to chaos. All of this should be understood as You-Yi-De. How am I doing?

Oh yes. However, I cannot help but consider Let it Be a Mcartney song. The first thing that popped into my head just now when trying to think of a beatles song, something that my brain considers typical was, "... lovely rita meter-maid ... " Of course there's also "I am the apeman... OOOOh. I am the ApeMan OOOOOh. I AM the Walrus!!!!! CooCooCachooCooCooCachoo." Oooh. I love that. I just got chills. I AM the walrus. Probably my favorite Beatles song, is so typical, for me, for my personality. The grit, the grungy-distortion, the foolish-optimism, the primal hollar at the beginning. Have you guessed it?

.

Yes, I noticed the muscles tensing. Definitely.

I object, your honor. I am a hugger, not slugger. Or at least that is my aspiration. That said... exhibit A. 8:22 minutes of... "I don't know what" Is it music? See below:

Here's an unpopular opinion: The Beatles weren't all that great. ~runs away~

Friends, Is there a reason Fa Qi is being considered literally electricity, and not something which produces an electric-sensation? It seems to me that it could feel like electricty, but, it's not electrons moving from point to point in a circuit doing 'work' along the way in the form of Work=Current*Voltage*Time. Could it be just a sensation which is percieved and best understood and best described as electric? Maybe even the practioner visualizes it as a form of electric current? But still, that does not mean it is literally electrons moving, right?

So, what if it's read this way: High virtue is not being boasted with virtue as: "one has virtue or or one is virtuous". ? Meaning: [One having] High-virtue does not claim "I have virtue" or "I am virtuous" Higher-virtue does not label itself as "virtue". 上德 不 "德" , 是以 "有德" . = Higher De is not "De", as thus "De is manifesting/forming/present/active". If it did claim that, it would be boasting.

Clearly I'm not a scholar, but when I read this, I considered the end, 2nd to last line and said to myself, "well that makes sense." ( Hopefully I did OK with the word for word translation ) 是以 Thus 大丈夫 A man with integrity 處 resides 其 [in] his 厚 kindness，不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 薄 unkindness； 處 resides 其 [in] his 實 honesty/truth, 不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 華 magnificence。 故 Because 去 [it] departs [from those] 彼 that 取 cling 此 to this。 That's my best guess. If so, the "punch-line" at the end is being applied at the beginning even though the words are not technically there.

OK. Well. Just a bit of good news: That's what I was thinking when I attempted the translation. I undertand that. Thank you for your patience helping me.

Thank you @ChiDragon, Silly question ( which, I recall from one of your posts on another thread, is permitted ) So, on Ctext.org they are using 為之, but, this is referring to 無為 from the lines above it?

Starting on DDJ 38 in order to assess whether there is a flow and context leading up to DDJ 40 and following it. Seeing / feeling how the author intended the text and ideas to flow should not require a complete translation. I'll be using the text from Ctext.org for this initial attempt. Any and all comments, corrections, and criticisms ( excluding insults like 'word-salad' ) are welcome. 上德 Upper-De 不 is not 德 De, 是以 Thus 有德 You-De； 下德 Lower-De 不 is not 失德 Shi-De, 是以 Thus 無德 Wu-De。 上德 Upper-De [is] 無為 WuWei 而 and 無以為 Wu-Yi-Wei； 下德 Lower-De 為之 it's Wei 而 and 有以為 You-Yi-Wei。 上仁 Upper-Compassion 為之 it's Wei 而 and 無以為 Wu-Yi-Wei； 上義 Upper-Justice 為之 it's Wei 而 and 有以為 You-Yi-Wei。 上禮 Upper-Courtesy 為之 it's Wei 而 and 莫之 [if] there it is not 應 agreement, 則 but 攘臂 wildly-gesturing 而 and 扔 throwing 之 it。 故 [This] Causes 失道 Shi-Dao 而後 and then 德 De， 失德 Shi-De 而後 and then 仁 Compassion， 失仁 Shi-Compassion 而後 and then 義 Justice， 失義 Shi-Justice 而後 and then 禮 courtesy。 夫禮 Shi-courtesy 者 [is] this person，忠信 Loyal-trust 之 it is 薄 weak，而 and 亂 chaos 之 it is 首 in charge。 前 It will be 識 thought 者 to the person who is ，"道 Dao 之 it is 華 blossoming"，而 and 愚 to be deceived 之 it is 始 the beginning。 是以 Thus 大丈夫 A man with integrity 處 resides 其 [in] his 厚 kindness，不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 薄 unkindness； 處 resides 其 [in] his 實 honesty/truth, 不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 華 magnificence。 故 Because 去 [it] departs [from those] 彼 that 取 cling 此 to this。

"I can levitate birds... but no one cares." - Steven Wright

Return like a pendulum at the top of an arc which is an inversion? Different than returning like equal and opposite reaction, or oscillating? 反 communicates an inversion? 復 communicates an equal opposite reaction?

I like it. It's interesting to me that someone ( translator, editor, publisher, someone... ) chose to capitalize 'R'. Returning as a proper noun or for emphasis. The character being translated as "Returning" is 反. The verse begins with it. So, maybe, this concept of "Returning" is setting the atmosphere, the tone, for the idea which follows? 反 seems to be somewhat rare in the DDJ. Using the version on ctext.org it occurs only 4 times. 25, 40, 65, 78.

Also, if the MWD has 38 as the first chapter, this will also be considered. The author is beginning with these verses.

Thank you, Per Hendricks in the MWD: "what to us is chapter 40 comes between chapters 41 and 42". I will consider the flow both 38-39-40-41-42, and 39-41-40-42-43, and compare. Also I noticed that there were not chapter divisions originally, or at least, they were not established and fixed until later. So zooming out to look at the surrounding context is justified.

Does this make sense? A thing being born into 有 if the next line has 有 being born into 无? If it is 'into', then isn't this describing "unbecoming" a process of being deconstructed and re-assimilated into non-being? If so, does "born" describe it? Is "into"a good fit here? I see 'from' listed above. Doesn't translating it as "from" fit better with "born"? Then the verses consistently describe "becoming". Choosing "into" instead of "from" makes the verb "born" awkward to me. Not that I cannot accept the idea of birthing being part of a process of unbirth / unbecoming / deconstructing...