[DDJ Meaning] Chapter 42

[OldDog]

Enjoyed the Feynman lecture ... being a minor aficionado of quantum mechanics ... and will likely visit the imaginary numbers thread ... being a minor aficionado of mathematics. 

 

I often sit in wonder of all the fine and detailed knowledge we gather in various technical pursuits ... and at how little it seems to affect our everyday lives.

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, OldDog said:

Enjoyed the Feynman lecture ... being a minor aficionado of quantum mechanics ... and will likely visit the imaginary numbers thread ... being a minor aficionado of mathematics. I often sit in wonder of all the fine and detailed knowledge we gather in various technical pursuits ... and at how little it seems to affect our everyday lives.

 

That is called being unconscious.   Living without purpose.  Being unable to comprehend how to live.   Lack of integration of conceptual knowledge and being.   Lack of being.
Many "scientists" today are human beings who have no being, and live in a souped up brain that processes data on steroids, whilst the soul is slowly dying.
Science used to mean something else in the days of Ancient Greece.   It was a way of being, of individual being, of tradition of learning, it had soul.
Today ... some science speakers you can look straight through them, all that is there is data, soulless high speed mouths.

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

The best part of quantum physics is that we can observe it and change the outcome of the experiment. If science is in the self interest of science and not for humanity it is a waste of time. The best part of science is the attempt to explain something that has already happened.

 

The knowledge of energy and the non physical world allows us to use the information to change the outcome of the experiment, change karma ,change our future, change DNA itself. That is some weird shit. 

[wandelaar]

The study of electricity and magnetism was not done in the interest of humanity but out of pure curiosity and its practical utility at the time was as good as absent. One simply cannot foresee what kind of fundamental research will or will not prove useful in the future.

Edited August 27, 2018 by wandelaar

[Wu Ming Jen]

Just like penicillin being an accident discovery that benefited humanity by mistake. What if we put our minds on humanity or actually had a unifying force to connect all branches of science, Each department of science would be able to talk to each other and have great advancement for humans that would be cool. 

[wandelaar]

The problem with fundamental science is that it concerns itself with things we don't yet understand, and that's why we can't predict whether or not a certain form of fundamental research will be of benefit to humanity.

[flowing hands]

Lets go back

 

 

The Dao begot one,
one gave birth and then there was two.
Two begot three.
And so the Ten Thousand Things were formed.

 

What is the one? The very first cell to come alive. As we know, cells can multiply, so then we have two. etc etc life begins

[AugustGreig]

On 8/25/2018 at 5:16 PM, rideforever said:

 

These don't seem to be correct, this is about the creation of the universe.

Way gave birth to One > source of the universe.
One gave birth to Two > fundamental polarity, yin-yang
Two gave birth to Three > ?
Three gave birth to 10,000 > all the myriad things here

 

Cannot be Heaven, Earth, Man .... because Man does not precede the 10,000 things
Cannot be Movement, Energy, Qi .... because One does not Move, Two moves, and Qi is Energy ... this is also a bit vague

 

So I can only assume that Two gave birth to Three means simply that Yin-Yang creates.

 

Tao gave birth tot the Source of the Universe
Source manifested through a pair of fundamental alternating polarities YinYang

YinYang is creative

What was created was 10,000 things.

 

?

I always read it as creation. 3=creation. For example, man+woman=baby. The baby can't survive on it's own, so now you have something new, a family of three. I guess all life and probably all of the universe is the same.

[Stosh]

That equation would be 1Y+1X=1( X or Y)+(1Y+1X)

Meaning that all the universe isn't the same, that is a false presumption which you inadvertently added. 

If it were true , then 2y or 2x would also yield a baby. 

Additionally , one should ask how the hell would some old Chinese guy know about cells ,2200 years before they were discovered, or the beginning of the Universe for that matter. 

The reasonable answer is that he didn't ,, though you may , and you are now inserting your knowledge into the brain case of someone else ,and are attributing godlike powers to mere mortals, to account for it.

>> and why would anyone make THAT choice?  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Stosh

[26sol]

"two gives birth to three"

I think this is best portrayed by the vesica pisces

the area where opposites find common ground and creation takes place; and maybe the opposite is the masonic checkerboard,where the opposites never find common ground and just succeed each other in a state of oblivion; and maybe these two states are phases of the cycle like inhalation exhalation

Edited December 7, 2018 by 26sol

[rideforever]

There is never just one, it is a manner of talking indicating that the two come from the same place.   

 

Ugh just had a really awful thought that all existence is a cyclical thing where beings are created who are confused, run around helplessly, then finally find out that they aren't separate and then vanish.   Rinse repeat, endlessly.  Ugh.

 

But ... I suppose we have to trust that something important is happening and it's worthwhile .... hmmm

 

But enlightened beings are real, so they seem to become permanent structures ... perhaps in a different universe

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by rideforever

[dawei]

12 hours ago, rideforever said:

Ugh just had a really awful thought that all existence is a cyclical thing where beings are created who are confused, run around helplessly, then finally find out that they aren't separate and then vanish.   Rinse repeat, endlessly.  Ugh.

 

Ah... then read the Tai Yi Sheng Shui :

 

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/18957-the-water-book-taiyi-sheng-shui-太一生水/

 

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/taiyi.html

 

[Fa Xin]

On 4/8/2019 at 1:19 PM, GSmaster said:

 

This has nothing to do with cells, it is about alchemy cultivation.

 

 

TTC is beautiful because it can have many interpretations at many levels. 

[dawei]

On 4/8/2019 at 1:19 PM, GSmaster said:

 

This has nothing to do with cells, it is about alchemy cultivation.

 

 

As was said...

 

On 4/10/2019 at 2:10 PM, Fa Xin said:

 

TTC is beautiful because it can have many interpretations at many levels. 

 

21 hours ago, GSmaster said:

 

It depends on the level of development of reader, I guess.

Everyone sees something he can understand.

 

 

What is the date for the TTC vs Alchemy Cultivation ?

 

Does Laozi always use One to denote Alchemy Cultivation or only in this chapter ?

And what of all the ancient texts referring to One ?

 

Many interpretations at many levels... everyone sees something he can understand... 

[Mudfoot]

27 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

What is the date for the TTC vs Alchemy Cultivation ?

I'm weak on chinese understanding of biology, but did they know about cells 2500 years ago? 

[Stosh]

38 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

I'm weak on chinese understanding of biology, but did they know about cells 2500 years ago? 

Discovered in 1600s. 

The issue to consider for analogy here,  is not biology, but the beginnings of cognition. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Stosh

[Limahong]

On 8/25/2018 at 3:22 AM, dawei said:

DDJ - Chapter 42

 

Hi dawei,

 

Good compilation - thank you.

 

Not wanting to split hair ~ "i" have moved from dualistic to monistic - whilst trying to embrace Taoism.

 

"i" try to be 'good' to myself from birth to death with compassion...

 

 

Live/die well?

 

- Anand

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Limahong
Correct errors.

[Stosh]

It's not an inkblot, in fact, it's reasonably easy to read, however , dao applies on many levels, it's creatively written, and many are not receptive. Looking at the simplest level of characters is  looking too closely, translators really need to understand first. Fh did a nice job with most of the chapters, but he is ticked off and left.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Movement and Stasis are a good example.

 

This is a Polarity.

 

Initially, there is nothing - "WuJi" - "No Polarity".

 

No Thing = No Polarity.

 

Then, "as it so happens" ("Tao"), some Thing ("the One") appears.

 

Let's say that was a Movement that happened to be that "One".

 

The instant the One Movement (Yang) happens, Stasis (Yin) is revealed - the "TaiJi".

 

Without Movement, Stasis is invisible. There would be no way to discern it, no thing to discern it from.

 

Every One HAS Two - has Polarity - an Up/Down, Inside/Outside, etc - or "YinYang".

 

This is the only way "Two" can be made from just "One" and not require Two Things to exist first.

 

Otherwise, if we took this materially, then we expect One object to split into Two Objects or produce Another Object.

 

Try that. Put a rock on a table and see if it "produces" Two rocks. Then see if those Two produce a Third rock.

 

Then see if that One rock HAS an Up/Down, Left/Right, etc.

 

This is some of the YinYang (Polarity) OF the One rock.

 

Polarity requires Two, and IS two aspects OF the One.

 

Movement between these two poles of a Polarity ("YinYang") is "Qi".

 

This is why Qi is also called "Energy". It is Movement.

 

No Polarity = No Movement.

 

This Movement produces all variations of ("10,000") Things - Living/Dead, Bigger/Smaller, Day/Night, Vegetable/Animal, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Limahong]

13 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

Put a rock on a table and see if it "produces" Two rocks.

 

A rock is a rock.

 

I am a rock...

 

 

[Limahong]

On 8/26/2018 at 9:25 AM, dawei said:

It may be that Von is saying the interactive results are three and to be considered the three.

 

Hi dawei,

 

A + B => DC

 

DC is "the three"?

 

- Anand

 

(P.S. DC pertains to interactive experiences.)

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[dawei]

17 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

I'm weak on chinese understanding of biology, but did they know about cells 2500 years ago? 

 

Stosh made an insightful comment... and I'm always interested to see what folks mean by alchemy cultivation as the term gets thrown around quite a bit without explanation or historical context.

 

I would agree that ancient times show a slow progression of cognition of energetic activity and health but the cultivation done in ancient times seems quite different than the more modern applications of alchemy cultivation.   

[dawei]

12 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

Try that. Put a rock on a table and see if it "produces" Two rocks. Then see if those Two produce a Third rock.

 

That reminds me of the funny argument made about entropy... throw a pile of lumber on the ground and see if it turns itself into a house on its own

 

That one rock on the table came from something... so that is not really the ONE except if we ignore where it came from.  But if forces acted on it, even water can break it up into Two.   

[dawei]

12 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dawei,

 

A + B => DC

 

DC is "the three"?

 

- Anand

 

(P.S. DC pertains to interactive experiences.)

 

 

A, B, DC are the three in what I related.  Counting does get challenging at times, right

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dawei said:

A, B, DC are the three in what I related.  Counting does get challenging at times, right

 

Hi dawei,

 

Taoist (ac)counting algorithms may defy conventional logic... except perhaps to the fellow travelers on a path less traveled... when they learn and share experientially?

 

- Anand