wandelaar

The perfect square has no corners?

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

Just today, I finally manage to convince the entire management team to adopt my three proposals. One, to adopt a new company philosophy. Two, to implement a Shop Floor Control System which I designed specifically for them. Three, forbids over-time while I continue to load them factory with more job orders. All three are meant for the benefits of the entire company. The entire management team, all happily accepted my three proposals. I have never seen this management finally agreed in unison. Two hours, later, they execute the orders based on my proposals. 

 

Sounds like the kinds fo things my dad used to do (Financial director of Chrysler international)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I almost read that as two hours later they executed you.

 

Sorry. They execute the(ir) order. not the order.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

Sounds like the kinds fo things my dad used to do (Financial director of Chrysler international)

This is the real difference. Here are three definitions.

1) True Leadership is leading people to get things done for the people.

2) False leadership is managing people to get things done for oneself (himself, cronies, political party, etc. But definitely NOT for the people).

3) Management is managing people to get things done.

 

Do you see the similarity between False leadership and Management?

No professor dares to add the last phrase, "for oneself" for that will destroy the entire meaning management where there are more than a million books have been written on management.

Edited by Eric Woon
typo error
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How on earth would a square ever come into being in possession of corners or anything at all?

 

In Buddhism is called shunya/emptiness.

 

An object or form is not a self in possession of its very own characteristics. The objector form is at best it's characteristics, not a self existing thing that has possession of its characteristics.

 

My body has no features; my body IS its features.

 

In other words, a perfect square IS it's four corners.

 

What is it Laozi says ? Remoe the hub and the whole assemblage is no longer a carriage?

 

Something like that. To paraphrase again it amounts to that if a carriage is missing it's wheels which are a defining characteristic of it being a carriage, than it can not rightly be called a carriage at all.

 

Edited by ion
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ion said:

How on earth would a square ever come into being in possession of anything.

 

In Buddhism is called shunya/emptiness.

 

An object or form is not a self in possession of its very own characteristics. The objector form is at best it's characteristics.

 

My body has no features; my body IS its features.

 

In other words, a perfect square IS it's four corners.

 

So what is your interpretation of the sentence this topic is about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't rightly say that a perfect square is missing it's four corners, nor can you rightly say that a carriage is missing it's wheels.

 

The carriage is the wheels, without them the assemblage would,make a better raft or barndoor than a carriage.

 

Shapes forms and objects only are what they are by conceptualization of their utility but have no actual, let alone, self existence. 

 

So how could one exist as a thing in possession of characteristics, and how could it exist as what it was conceptualized without the features/characteristics that meet the criteria of the conceptualized thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ion said:

You can't rightly say that a perfect square is missing it's four corners, nor can you rightly say that a carriage is missing it's wheels.

 

The carriage is the wheels, without them the assemblage would,make a better raft or barndoor than a carriage.

 

Shapes forms and objects only are what they are by conceptualization of their utility but have no actual, let alone, self existence. 

 

So how could one exist as a thing in possession of characteristics, and how could it exist as what it was conceptualized without the features/characteristics that meet the criteria of the conceptualized thing?

 

So you think Lao tzu was simply wrong here?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Simply wrong about what, and GS, if you read what you quoted and called wrong again I think you'll see that as an independent statement, to call what you quoted wrong is pretty silly :)

 

You'll both need to provide examples, or is this just two  examples of cognitive dissonance? 

Edited by ion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at a perfect glass window.

 

Does it "have" glass? No, a glass window doesnt have glass, a glass window IS glass.

 

"That glass window doesn't have any glass right now."

 

Does the perfect gentleman have good manners? He is only called a perfect gentleman because of his manners.

 

Is the perfect sage an independently existing entity that may or may not have wisdom?

 

No, they are only called the perfect sage when they have "attained" "perfect wisdom"

 

Remove the "perfect wisdom" and the sage is no more.

 

There is no spirit of square that exist bodiless in heaven without its 4 corners, but only needs 4 corners cost in the realm of mortals.

 

A square exist only as the meeting of 4 equal corners.

 

It is not an independent entity in possession of its characteristics.

 

It is those characteristics. 

 

"What happens to my fist when I open my hand?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

 

Exactly, empty and emptiness.

 

It seems too simple to say that a square is empty of corners, that a thing is not it's very own self independently existing with or without its defining characteristics.

 

But when you realize the significance, you realize how delusional the common view of existence is.

 

That an evergreen  Bush has leaves is to say there is something independent of the leaves that is in the activity of having leaves. It is to say that it may or not have leaves but no matter it is still an evergreen bush, and that is an incorrect view of things.

Edited by ion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a river without two banks, or a crashing wave without the ocean floor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Square and roundness is mentioned a few times.  I could not find anything that could be understood as "the perfect square has no corners though.

 

However, square earth is mentioned along with round heaven.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:54 PM, wandelaar said:

One sentence in the Tao Te Ching chapter 41 reads:

 

 

I find this paradox very hard to understand. Any suggestions?

 

[大方]:见识广博,有专长的

You cannot split up the first two characters. The pair forms a typical structured phrase or 词.  In this context, it means knowledgeable or is talented. However, in the modern context, it is mostly use as a two-character phrase that describes a person who is magnanimous.   

Edited by Eric Woon
phrase, not phase
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All paradox arises only from the fallacy assumption there was something that could have been known or understood by viewing patterns of symbols. 

 

Attempting to convey meaning in words shares an inherent pseudo-paradox in that no two can mean the same to any two beings without also being the same consciousness to relate to what the pattern of symbols meant to the author. 

 

Chapter 41 rings true in every line with no confusion or paradox required to perceive, he is being a perfectly straight-shooter, but the message falling on ears with expectations to interpret a different message will not discover the directness of its expressions of the nature of reality until ready.  This effect is not by chance, but a precious gift. 

 

Milarepa Wisdom which explains why the no-attachment state clinging to nothing seems outwardly like making poor life choices, but is part of liberation.  Nature grows crystals as perfectly square as I've got tools to measure (and I can measure ~+-0.1um)  It's true they still aren't perfect if you could measure more precisely, but that's not related to the meaning, which transcends the geometry of the square and the corners. 

Quote

Equality and Seven Things to Forget


When I realize everything’s equality
I forget all about my close friends and my relatives
It’s OK to forget the objects of your attachment

When I realize wisdom beyond thought
I forget everything included in perceiver and perceived
It’s OK to forget these causes of happiness and pain

Beyond memory, beyond feelings
I forget all about experiences, the good ones and the bad
It’s OK to forget them, they just go up and down

When I know the three kayas are present naturally
I forget all about the deity’s generation stage practice
It’s OK to forget the Dharma made of concepts

When I realize the result’s inside of me
I forget all about the results you have to strive and strain to get
It’s OK to forget the Dharma of the relative truth

Meditating on the key instructions
I forget all other explanations and their conventional terms
It’s OK to forget the Dharma that makes you arrogant

When I realize appearances are my texts
I forget all about those big books with their letters in black
It’s OK to forget the Dharma that’s just a heavy load



-- Jetsun Milarepa, translated under the guidance of Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, 
by Ari Goldfield, July 13, 2002, Dechen Chöling, France.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited by Bud Jetsun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What could be called the "scientists" of the time sought to learn the structure of sky and earth. One opinion held that "the sky is like a round plant, the earth like a square chess plant." (Fang 1975). According to Zhou Bi Suan Jing (astronomical algorism), the earth is considered as a great square. One side is as long as 810,000 Li (405,000 km), with the height of the sky from earth at about 80,000 Li (40,000 km). The earth is perceived as a stable body.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00241209

 

I think that line must be taken in context of ancient China. It cannot be literally translated without making no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Horse catch mice? I would like to see that.

That was from Chuang Tzu.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites