Luck

Loaned into English in the 15th century (probably as a gambling term) from Middle Dutch luc, a shortened form of gheluc (“good fortune”), whence Modern Dutch geluk. Middle Dutch luc, gheluc is paralleled by Middle High German lücke, gelücke (modern German Glück). The word occurs only from the 12th century, apparently first in Rhine Frankish. Perhaps from a Frankish *galukki. The word enters standard Middle High German during the 13th century and spreads to English and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages. Its origin seems to have been regional or dialectal, and there were competing German words such as gevelle or schick, or the Latinate fortūne from Latin fortūna. Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to its derivations from a number of roots.

Use as a verb in American English is late (the 1940s), but there was a Middle English verb lukken (“to chance, to happen by good fortune”) in the 15th century.

Wednesday, March 17

"Personal application of that you know brings about those experiences in the lives of individuals that some call “luck” or “chance.” For, when the will to do is ever-present and not faltered by doubts and fears that may arise in the experience of all, then does it build, then does it attract that which builds and builds and IS the constructive force in the experience of all."

― Edgar Cayce (ECRL 416-2)

Lady Luck, Janet Hill

《道德經》第二章

天下皆知美之為美，斯惡已。

皆知善之為善，斯不善已。

故有無相生，難易相成，長短相較，高下相傾，音聲相和，前後相隨。

是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教；萬物作焉而不辭，生而不有。

為而不恃，功成而弗居。

夫唯弗居，是以不去。

Dào De Jing Chapter 2 ― Arthur Waley

It is because every one under Heaven recognizes beauty as beauty,

That the idea of ugliness exists.

And equally, if every one recognized virtue as virtue,

this would merely create fresh conceptions of wickedness.

For truly, Being and Not-being grow out of one another;

Difficult and easy complete one another.

Long and short test one another;

High and low determine one another.

Pitch and mode give harmony to one another.

Front and back give sequence to one another.

Therefore the Sage relies on actionless activity,

Carries on wordless teaching,

But the myriad creatures are worked upon by him;

He does not disown them.

He rears them, but does not lay claim to them,

Controls them, but does not lean upon them,

Achieves his aim, but does not call attention to what he does;

And for the very reason that he does not call attention to what he does

He is not ejected from the fruition of what he has done.

the Dao of Atheism :

: the Shaman Atheist 2/81

2

Everyone knows what god is -- that is how we know what is not god. Everyone knows what good is -- that is how we know what is not good. This is how being and not-being, experience and non-experience, theism and atheism create each other and are mutually dependent. Light and dark complement each other, long and short-form one another, low and high are relative, sound and tone are harmonies. Wise persons do not judge good or bad do not take action for or against do not disown judgment or action but practice silent teaching. Only together do opposites make a whole. The world is acted upon by even the passive observer, still, nothing is taken and nothing is destroyed. Things are created, actions taken, but no claim is made upon them. Things are controlled but not manipulated for personal gain. Compensation -- verbal or material -- is never the desired goal.

What we like to think of as theological opposites are actually twins to each other, co-dependent upon each other for their mutual definition. The definition of god changes with every age. No definition will suit everyone. Yet every person that experiences god can speak of that experience. Likewise, every person without the experience of God can speak of that non-experience. It is like two people: one who can see light and one who cannot. Neither is inherently better for the experience of light or not. Both can describe their life to each other according to mutual experiences, but it stops at the point of distinguishing light from dark, sunny from cloudy, blue from orange. The seeing person might say that blindness is a disability, yet sight is an impossible experience for the blind person, and no-sight is their natural state of being. Which is better? In making the distinctions, we dissolve the bond between both sides of the issue and force them farther apart. Theism and atheism are inextricably united to each other -- one cannot live without the other. Buddhism as atheism has survived without a theism to complement it, yet types of Buddhism have incorporated theistic elements within it, as have certain branches of Christianity adapted to elements of atheism. Experience, whether theistic or atheistic, cannot be forced. Both sides promote beliefs that they hope will lead to a calculated religious experience, yet neither side claims victory: there is none to gain.