[LIT index]  [^^Terms]  [^^TIME LINE]

Story Lab

Micro: Christianisation of the Modern World

2.y Micro: Christianisation of the Modern World. Being mostly a diatribe (and/with much whineing) how everything is becoming Christian in this supposedly god-less world. {Back to Story Lab "stuff"}

The Text

In this section: {
Re-casting the Tau}

Re-casting the Tau

An example of how something that clearly pre-dates Christianity and how it is *re-cast* is the Tau. For example, in "Chinese Health Care Secrets" by Henry B. Lin, we have: [P.16] ... This concept of correspondence between macro-cosm and micro-cosm can be shown as follows: * Macro-cosmic Trinity Heaven - universal or general balance Earth - social or relative balance Man - individual or particular balance * Micro-cosmic Trinity Body - physical or physiological harmony Mind - mental or psychological harmony Soul - spiritual or aesthetic harmony and earlier {P.15] Wuji [nothingness] gives birth to taiji [the Great Ultimate] Which moves and generates yang. Yang in turn gives birth to yin. Yang changes, yin unites. Creating water, fire, wood, metal, and earth [the five elements] The five elments bring about things in order, And the four seasons progress in sequence. The problem (that i have) is that from one of the Tau's (#42, as i recall ;) -- The tau gave birth to the one, and the one gave birth the the two, and the two gave birth to the three, and the three gave birth to all of the myriad things. Now of course these are the words; but, of course we can't just let things *be*, now can we? Thus, the *interpretation* (as per the quote above) goes like this: The way (the ONE, the ULTIMATE/etc) gave birth to the masculine (adam?) and this Yang gave birth to the femaile (eve?) and this Yin gave birth to nature (ie, the world) and then were established the seasons, etc, etc, etc. However (again, my interpretation/understanding) the tau is at once both zero and infinity -- the nothingness of the void, and the all of all all's (universe of all universes). from this comes the one (uniqueness, the de-markation from the universe, which is one-ness separate from whole-ness. One could (as i do) view this as the observer separated from all that is (all that is observable/existant/possible). There is not *anything* (i would maintain) that suggests masculinity here -- just the separation of the singular from the general, etc. next is the two which is clearly duality (the thing, and the thing contrasted). Again, only an anthropomorphically self-centred *person* would attach this to female-ness. It is important to indicate that the *order* here is one which implies time. But, if we step outside of literality, then these concepts must have always existed; ie, the eternallity of now-ness as opposed to time as flow, etc. (This could (and should) give rise to numerous debates/discussions/investigations/explorations/stories of what *that* implies. That is, if the unity/differentiation have always existed, then the perception of time-flow *might* be a result of change in point-of-view, the universe contemplating itself (and of (possible) necessity creating the differentiating things; ie, one/two/three). Regardless, it is the sequence of becomings (zero, one, two, three, myriad) that is important here as a process of differentiation (de-markations, etc). Rather than necessarily a time-flow; ie, the order in which we *happen* to pick up a set of building blocks *should not* imply a prefered order or hierarchical standing of the blocks). Thus, we then have "the three" (child in the above interpretation), but in one (my prefered) interpretation: one (singularity), two (duality), three (the differentiation) and hence the "measuring" function. That is, once we have the one (existant) as de-marked from the all (tau), then that by it's very nature indicates at least some sort of *dividing* (hence a duality) between the one and the all. [Naturally, we may view the one as *still* being a part of the all, or we may view (in the Heroic/Romantic tradtion) the one as being set aside from the all ("and the rest") as having some purpose, etc. Again, however, this implies such time-flow things as destiny, journey, etc. There is not necessarily a need for this, since we might just as well view this as "mind" separated from the "universe" so as to be able to contemplate not only the universe (the *other*), but the self as well. (This of course is contrary to Buddhism where the self is considered an illusion (from what little i understand of that system)). Regardless, we might as well view the one/two/three in Hegelian terms; ie, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Finally, the fact that once there is a separateon from the one and two into the three, that process of differentiation can continue for-ever; ie, giving rise to all the myriad things. I realise that the above *pure* metaphysical discussion is a bit tedious (and i would be the first to argue (as i often do) that most (if not all) ontiological arguments devolve to semantics. [Here we could as well assert that the above metaphysical exploration is in fact a re-casting of the epistimology of exitance (and to some extent existence; ie, as regards the "one" as being able to perceive and/or be-self aware, etc). However, my point here ("everyone must have a point", as the movie "The Point", sez) is this: At no time in the discussion of the epistimology/ontology/metaphysics of the tau is it required to be tied to *just* the trinity. In fact, the whole idea is more in keeping with the counting of so-called primitive tribes that (purportedly; i have *never* found any valid reference to where/who this tribe *actually* is/was!) count via: "one, two, three, many". But, in this "primitiveness" is indeed the wisdom of the tau. And to do a quick "product tie-in", George Gamow's book, appropriately entitled: "One, Two, Three, ... Infinity" (a marvelous introduction to pretty much of all of science and maths, by one of the co-authors of the "Big Bang" Theory). Finally, let us also agree (i hope) that the tau has nothing (or at the very least almost nothing) to do with the tradtional "god" and "man" model of the universe. Recall too, that much (about the entire second half) has to do with proper behaviour as well. I have often thought of it as a poitically correct guide by the tauists so as to show those in authority (the princes) that they did not deny them their place in the *hierarchy* of things. And in the same way that *all* dictators take it upon themselves to have a simple title (first citizen, etc) when in fact wielding supreme executive authority, those chapters of the tau may be thought of in much the same way as Machivelli's instructions to the princes of his time in his: "The Prince". "Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries", by Mircea Eliade (translated by Philip Mairet), (Harper-Row, New York, 1957/1961). Pp.??-??.????? BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE [


(this section only)
{Back to the TEXT} [02] {Back to the TEXT} [03] {Back to the TEXT} [04] {Back to the TEXT} [05] {Back to the TEXT} [06] {Back to the TEXT} [07] {Back to the TEXT} [08] {Back to the TEXT} [09] {Back to the TEXT} [10] {Back to the TEXT} [11] {Back to the TEXT}