The dao that can be spoken is not the true dao, but it still has a name ("dao") and is real and can be spoken *of*. What about a paradoxical notion that cannot even be referred to at all? ...that which by definition is nameless, and without definition.
Christopher Alexander wrote about the "quality without a name" http://ryanaferguson.com/2017/01/quality-without-name/ … It was referred to yet unnamed.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Oh man, this is brilliant. Different types of propositions: • t ("true") • f ("false") • b ("both t & f") • n ("neither t nor f") • i ("ineffable") It supposes that ineffable propositions are real, which of course many people will deny, but it's a beautiful articulation.pic.twitter.com/PFvljQlp8P
End of conversation
-
-
-
Reminds me of Pirsig’s statements about Quality here: https://twitter.com/coachnateb/status/743547436694548480?s=21 …
@AE_Robbert
-
Totally. I think there's something here that is fundamentally connected with the relationship between right-hemisphere & left-hemisphere thinking. It's like how an explanation of the beauty of anything (a flower, a poem, a person) represents but doesn't *present* that beauty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.