No opposite; no one

I think I don’t yet understand what is the Teo, it is explained as something nor explainable nor namable, and not eternal. It seems to be that there are too Teo, the one that is namable and eternal and the other that it is the opposite. At least that is what I understood, the problem is that I don’t know what is the Teo, is it a god, a preacher, another king do Confucius “way”, or the name of a tree. It has the same concept of Confucius. The writing is based of maxims that have a deep meaning. If analyzed and re read it talks about moral values, about truths of life and humans and the world, and everything that has to do with it. Yet it is not religious and it is not a guide on how life should be lived, even though it sometimes feels as if the author is commanding you to do as it is told, otherwise you are wrong.

The structure is a fallacy, “this, because, therefore” and sometimes it doesn’t make sense at all and the main ideas are completely different form one sentence to the other, which makes you get lost quite often. It jumps to wrong conclusions that after all eventually persuade you to believe it. It is a trick!

There is a maxim that talks about there being good because there is evil and there being beautiful because there is ugliness, which made me realize something. We are nothing if it wasn’t because of our opposite. What is white if there is no black? What is love when there is no hate?