(February 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm)rasetsu Wrote: You were asked to provide a citation showing what I said. Neither of those are citations of anything I said.
I already a provided a citation of what you said (and even used a colored font) in post # 92.
Here it is once again:
(February 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.
And then I provided two quotes (one from a book and one from Wikipedia) which show that Taoism teaches the opposite of what you said. Here are the links:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BRdmQzA...&q&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Descrip...he_concept
From Wikipedia:
"Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered."
(February 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Who's pushing anybody? You faulted me for not debating you in depth. When I agree to debate you in-depth, you decline. That ends this debate.
Go ahead and quote the exact sentence where I faulted you for "not debating" with me.
(I'm amused by how foolishly you're burying yourself deeper as you reply).
