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

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
30 minutes ago, ion said:

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

 

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

 

That is completely wrong.

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

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
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