Gee, what a sour grape! Some welcome!
Steve's right, of course, about trying to "define" the Tao (or whatever you call "it"). Carl calls the first verse a "disclaimer." That is, there's a fundimental problem in talking about these things which is . . . the more you talk, the farther you stray from the "simple truth", whatever that is. (So to speak . . . paraphrasing here). Some folks who don't really like this idea (and by extension, the whole Taoist viewpoint) counter with something Steve mentioned, to the effect of "if, by the nature of Taoism, you can't define the 'truth' with precision (as is theoretically much more feasible in other religions), how lame is that?!?" Of course, the whole point of Taoism is not to nail down the "truth" -- looking at the tree despite the forest, or whatever the saying is. OK, I think I've said enough.
Oh, I should also point out that I agree with what Carl said regarding defining something as infinite, although that's an odd thing to think about . . . saying something is un-definable is defining it. Huh! Strange stuff. :?
Welcome to CenterTao.org, Steve!