The United Way

@MJA,

Icon wrote:

No sir... Tao = universal oneness. Not one is me. One is everything.

But now you have begun to number, and one implies two.

Remember what Chuang Tzu said: "To organize is to destroy".

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But now you have begun to number, and one implies two.

Remember what Chuang Tzu said: "To organize is to destroy".

One does imply two, just as = implies measurement! It's all context, and context appears to destroy this worldview; As you note: "To organize is to destroy"!

I don't feel "One", or "=" rightly express the notion being conjured here.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

True Meaning

Simplicity is were the truth is.
And the existing infinite universe is the Oneness of that truth.
Unless of course you can show me another.
Then it would be twoniverse right?
Is there another universe and doesn't uni truly mean One?
Tell us about another if you can.

=
MJA

I didnt speak about other universes, for the word universe means "everthing that exists", but I spoke about the fact that if there is just one thing, there is no motion. If there is no motion, there is no life, nor thoughs, nor us. If the universe was in harmony, that would be just fine, but we wouldnt be here. Our existence is the proof of that it is not in harmony.

Another way of seeing it: Nothing is something too. You cannot have life or thoughs with nothing, but if you add something, both become possible.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But now you have begun to number, and one implies two.

Remember what Chuang Tzu said: "To organize is to destroy".

"If you think you know the Tao then you do not" ~Ancient Chinese Proverb.

The fact of the matter is that I cannot explain the Tao because there are, by the very nature of the thing, no words which can accurately explain it. It is one of those few things beyond words where the true heart of philosophy sits waiting for us to stumble upon it.

@Icon,

I have encountered only one problem since solving Einstein's Unified Field Equation, and that is having the patience to wait for everyone else.

Tao = One,
Be equal, Be One,

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

I have encountered only one problem since solving Einstein's Unified Field Equation, and that is having the patience to wait for everyone else.

Tao = One,
Be equal, Be One,

=
MJA

Your faith in your correctness bothers me a little. How can you be so sure?

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Your faith in your correctness bothers me a little. How can you be so sure?

Just like we are sure 2 + 2 = 4 and I am sure nothing exists alone. Even the workings of logic seen to differ from people to people, total mutual-understanding will be impossible until we literally plug our brains into each other I bet Smile

@manored,

manored wrote:

Just like we are sure 2 + 2 = 4 and I am sure nothing exists alone. Even the workings of logic seen to differ from people to people, total mutual-understanding will be impossible until we literally plug our brains into each other I bet

But 2+2=5 in greater quantities of 2.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Your faith in your correctness bothers me a little. How can you be so sure?

Simplicity!

=
MJA

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

But 2+2=5 in greater quantities of 2.

Did I spoke about greater quantities of 2? No! Smile

Funny thing about philosopy is that sometimes philosophers dive so deep into their ideas that they forget the pratical side, like MJA seens to have done.

@manored,

I'll wait for ya, Right here, at =, at One, at Truth.

=
MJA

@MJA,

If you consider yourself split, how come all is equal?

@MJA,

MJA,

When is the wedding for you and Occam's razor? I'll be your best man, if you'd like.

Here, here:

"Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one."

-Wiki Occam's razor

Even if you're correct and the answer to everything, is simply "=", what are you waiting for us to do? You're going to wait at, "=", at One, at Truth... and how would you like us to meet you? If everyone shared this notion that everything was, "=", we wouldn't be progressing in anything, now would we? Am I still misunderstanding you?

You seem to imply you have everything figured out. Well, what do I think? I think you've taken the easy way out. I think you came to some epiphany sometime in your life, and have decided to stop critically thinking. I think "One", "Truth", and "Equal", are all subjective in the context you're speaking them, and someone may come to different conclusions, conclusions that are no better or worse than yours!

My only advice: Don't stop considering! Contemplate!

@MJA,

MJA, if you want to cut to the chase, you can simplify down to:

1 = 1

That must be the meaning of life Smile

@manored,

MJA wrote:

Tao = One,

No, this is simply false: Lao Tzu never makes this claim, and Chuang Tzu argues against the claim. We could also argue that Lao Tzu argues against the claim that "Tao equals One" by sighting very the first stanza of the Tao Te Ching.

Tao does not equal One.

@MJA,

Yeah, if nothing else the Tao Te Ching is a study in complementary opposites.

Tao = 2 would be more accurate

Better yet:

Tao = 1 and -1

@Aedes,

Maybe more accurate, but still inaccurate. I take your point about complimentary opposites, but to equate Tao with some number is to organize Tao.

@MJA,

I'm not equating it with a number. It's abundantly clear that it can't be placed in some self-contained idea. The concept of "One" is very strong in the western religious tradition, and I think MJA is sort of trying to draw a parallel between western religion and Taoism. But the concept of "One" is not where that parallel lies. Tao seems to be a concept of balance to me -- if there's any kind of analog within western religion, it's not something concrete.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

MJA,

When is the wedding for you and Occam's razor? I'll be your best man, if you'd like.

Here, here:

"Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one."

-Wiki Occam's razor

Even if you're correct and the answer to everything, is simply "=", what are you waiting for us to do? You're going to wait at, "=", at One, at Truth... and how would you like us to meet you? If everyone shared this notion that everything was, "=", we wouldn't be progressing in anything, now would we? Am I still misunderstanding you?

You seem to imply you have everything figured out. Well, what do I think? I think you've taken the easy way out. I think you came to some epiphany sometime in your life, and have decided to stop critically thinking. I think "One", "Truth", and "Equal", are all subjective in the context you're speaking them, and someone may come to different conclusions, conclusions that are no better or worse than yours!

My only advice: Don't stop considering! Contemplate!

How should we meet Z? Truthfully and as equals and nothing less or more.
Are you still misunderstanding Truth? Yes I think you are, but your trying.
The easy way out? You have no idea, but what difficulties came my Way led me The Way, to =, to One, to truth.
I had to know.
Contemplate? Well I reduced Einstein famous equation to equality.
And that wasn't easy either, I done quite a bit of serious work.
And as for = not being progressive as you say, I would say when mankind is taught the simple truth of equality not of only mankind but All things, the lion will be free.
Einstein believed he only grasped the lion's tail in search of the lion, but the tail is the lion, equal, One or All.

=
MJA

Aedes wrote:

MJA, if you want to cut to the chase, you can simplify down to:

1 = 1

That must be the meaning of life

When One = One, One is All you need.
And that's were mankind is going.
To the meaning of Truth.

=
MJA

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Maybe more accurate, but still inaccurate. I take your point about complimentary opposites, but to equate Tao with some number is to organize Tao.

My use of One is far more than the mathematical symbol of 1, as you believe, One is infinitely All.
But = is the mathematical equation that unites All.
I call it truth.
And the power of truth will set us free.
Corrolations: One = All = Truth = Freedom = Unity = Justice
Or more simply:

=
MJA

Regarding Tao, The United Way and Me:

[CENTER]

http://www.metalgrass.com/taoteching/img/4.gif

http://www.metalgrass.com/taoteching/img/10.gif

http://www.metalgrass.com/taoteching/img/5.gif

[/CENTER]
The greatest accomplishments seem imperfect,
yet their usefulness is not diminished.
The greatest fullness seems empty,
yet it will be inexhaustible.

The greatest straightness seems crooked.
The most valued skill seems like clumsiness.
The greatest speech seems full of stammers.

Movement overcomes the cold,
and stillness overcomes the heat.
That which is pure and still is the universal ideal.

Equality is simply the purest universal ideal no matter the uncertain differences we measure or perceive. And = mathematically is the unified ideal equation.

Equal unites All and All is truly Tao, One, the Universe, and me.
The Way,

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA --

MJA wrote:

= mathematically is the unified ideal equation

= is not an equation of any sort. It's a declaration of the presence of an equation. All these famous equations, PV = nRT, V = IR, E=MC^2, 1+1=2, have an "=" because that symbol describes the relationship between the parameters flanking it.

MJA wrote:

Equal unites All and All is truly Tao, One, the Universe, and me.
The Way

There's something sort of euphoric the way you describe all of this, and I'm not trying to rain on your personal feelings.

But unless Tao means something different to you than it does to, say, Taoists, then it doesn't seem to have a place in this kind of deathly still vision of yours.

Your conception of oneness evokes Dante's beatific vision, with everything converging in god. But that's NOT Tao -- that's not a way. It may be your way, but then you're forced into the uncomfortable position of having a vision yet being forced to go through life (through a 'way'). The beatific vision is the END of the journey -- it's not the journey itself.

Philosophy Forum

The United Way

Quick Links

My Account

able2know