dust

Oh Karl you do like to stir the pot. I can't speak to AYP but Daoism is not -- necessarily -- about being "a floating abstract unconnected with reality and having meaning only in the mind of the practitioner". Unless you have already, and I missed it, I think you should create a topic in which you describe your understanding of Daoism -- specifically 'Dao' because that is the primary designation of the forum -- and so we can all understand where you're coming from in that regard, and so threads like this have less likelihood of pot-stirring..

Oh yes, I was going to say.. If it seems at any point that I know what I'm talking about, you can be sure that I'm not so sure. My knowledge of modern Chinese only helps a little for the ancient stuff, so I'm really just feeling my way along. I use a variety of online dictionaries, and it can take quite a while to get through. And my knowledge of the concepts / philosophy / history etc is very, very small. I sometimes wonder why these textual studies forums (DDJ, ZZ, I Ching, etc) get so little discussion compared to the others, and I suppose that one reason is that many members don't feel qualified to talk on texts from ancient foreign-language cultures. But as long as we're contributing in the spirit of learning, we're doing well. It is the dogmatic 'masters' who know everything and never need to question their wisdom who we should watch out for.

I would imagine that a boy doesn't get to walk into school one day, say "I'm a girl now", and instantly get access to girls' bathrooms. Even the most supportive of trans rights are going to want to know that the kid's feeling of trans-ness is established and genuine..

I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about. Sorry for being slow. The title says "The need for total obliteration", and you talk of difficulty in finding a balance. Are you suggesting a need for the obliteration of America, or Americans, or just specific things that happen in America? Or are you saying that Americans are far too concerned with a need for total obliteration?

Well, he didn't, did he? Because, if taken literally, that's impossible.

I hadn't looked at 物不能 as a structure -- good point. But I only find it once more in ZZ -- 至人之於德也，不修而物不能離焉 -- and then a few other texts including Wenzi and Hanfeizi. The other mention in ZZ, 至人之於德也 不修而物不能離焉 The Perfect Human stands in the same relationship in virtue Without cultivating it, he possesses it to such an extent that things cannot draw away from him is the same as the mention we're looking at in ch.5, 物不能离, and Watson translates it in roughly the same way as he has in ch.5. I'm not quite sure why it should mean "things can not lead him (or his De) astray"...? Especially when in the story about Ai Taituo they have already expressed how so many people loved him and could not bear to be away from him -- this fits in very well with the translation of 物不能离 as "indispensable to all" or more literally "all things unable to leave (him)" Anyway, you haven't commented on the focus of my ramblings... am I to assume that you don't entirely disagree with my idea about 德不形者 ?

China's Social Credit System: https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/planning-outline-for-the-construction-of-a-social-credit-system-2014-2020/ (I can't be bothered to read through this, so...) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-34592186 http://qz.com/519737/all-chinese-citizens-now-have-a-score-based-on-how-well-we-live-and-mine-sucks/ Well. There we are. These were the least alarmist of the first articles Google came up with. The Independent basically parrots the ramblings of a YouTube video claiming that all citizens now have scores based on what "the government approves of", which is clearly not true (yet). Even the title of the article above says "All Chinese citizens..", which is shown to be untrue in the article body ("36 million people so far" is hardly "all", now, is it?) So, trying not to be alarmist, is this somewhat alarming? The government could implement the kind of things that are being talked about, and I wouldn't put it past them....

Well, that's the thing, it's more than a credit score. A credit score, as I understand it, is based on past credit history, figuring out how likely someone is to pay money back, and is used for deciding whether or not to give someone a loan, etc. In my opinion, it's not entirely unfair for a bank to do this...? This social credit stuff seems to be taking it in a different direction. This is a totalitarian government with an incredible history of the abuse of basic human liberties planning on monitoring every citizen's finances closely. They're possibly not just basing the scores on debt history, but on a person's entire financial history, for which they have much easier methods of discovery than the US or UK governments (the four major banks are entirely state-owned), and they're possibly not just using these scores for banks to decide whether or not to give someone a loan. We're seeing talk of rating people publicly, on online platforms, encouragement to base social relationships on these credit scores, and increased focus on certain professions, and even on students. Most of the government article is about worthwhile stuff -- higher risk of punishment for "swindlers" and cheats, increased transparency in the courts and law enforcement, etc, but some of it, I think, night warrant a bit of the alarmism in certain articles. Actively spread the socialized application of credit products, stimulate the interaction, exchange, coordination and sharing of credit information, complete combined social credit reward and punishment mechanisms, construct a social credit environment of sincerity, self-discipline, trust-keeping and mutual trust. ..broaden the use of professional credit reports, and guide to construction of professional ethics and behavioural norms. I dunno...sounds a bit off in places..

Yes! Rather than deny a relationship, I'm suggesting that they are 2 related but distinct 'versions' of de. As MH said, perhaps the De of Dao and the De of Human. Integrity: http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=integrity blamelessness, purity, wholeness, completeness, perfect condition If we talk of de as 'integrity', we can say that all things have their own integrity -- water has its own integrity, and trees, and worms, and humans -- but that this integrity can increase and decrease; we can be more or less 'integrated', more or less 'whole', with more or less power. A blameless, pure, whole, perfect condition of water is when it is at rest, when it seems still -- though it remains a quick and active substance, and only appears to be motionless. There is simply no outward sign of its inward nature. And a blameless, pure, perfect condition of a human is when there is no outward sign of her inward nature -- when she is deceptively integrated. Duke Ai mentions the man as being deformed or ugly -- it's not stated as Zhuangzi's opinion. I think the characters are just talking as normal men talk, being surprised that a man so ugly could be so wonderful. Yes, I like this mirror idea that you and MH have mentioned.

Yes, like that. Two similar but distinct concepts, rather than one concept with a "but". It probably seems like a minor point to pick out, but I just couldn't understand why all 3 translators use the contrasting conjunction "though", interpreting as if 德不形者物不能離也 is a comment on 德者成和之修也, when they are actually being spoken of separately. The virtuous efficacy is the perfect cultivation of the harmony (of the nature). Though the realisation of this be not manifested in the person, things cannot separate themselves (from its influence). Virtue is the establishment of perfect harmony. Though virtue takes no form, things cannot break away from it. We can tell that a person has integrity, even though it may not be evident in her physical form, because she is indispensable to all things. There is no "though" or "but" or "however" in the Chinese. I see it as: 德者 成和之修也 德不形者 物不能離也 concept one description concept two description In the same format as something like: 天地 一指也 萬物 一馬也 Heaven and earth are one attribute the ten thousand things are one horse 知者 不言 言者 不知 knower doesn't speak speaker doesn't know 無為而尊者 天道也 有為而累者 人道也 To rest in inaction and command respect is the Way of Heaven To engage in action and become entangled in it is the way of man edit: I am aware that going against 3 of the most acclaimed translations is a bit controversial...which is why, though you've somewhat supported my idea MH, I'm continuing to post evidence for it and explain it a bit better..

Yes exactly, comparing the outward to the inward. But with the phrase I'm talking about, none of the translations manage it very well. I knew I was having trouble making myself clear. Let me try again, just using Watson and my own amendments: Watson original: "What do you mean when you say his virtue takes no form?" "Among level things, water at rest is the most perfect, and therefore it can serve as a standard. It guards what is inside and shows no movement outside. Virtue is the establishment of perfect harmony. Though virtue takes no form, things cannot break away from it." "Though virtue takes no form, things cannot break away from it" ? What does this mean, exactly? I don't like. Watson amended: "What do you mean when you say his de takes no form?" "Among level things, water at rest is the most perfect, and therefore it can serve as a standard. It guards what is inside and shows no movement outside. De is the establishment of perfect harmony. One with de has achieved complete harmony; one with inward de is indispensable to all." In other words: water has de, but water at rest has a certain kind of de -- a de that, like in Ai Taituo, isn't at once obvious, but is actually the most appealing and indispensable.

So.. I'm interested in the phrase 德不形者. Zhuangzi: 是必才全而德不形者也 [...] 德者，成和之修也。德不形者，物不能離也 Legge: He must have been a man whose powers were perfect, though his realisation of them was not manifested in his person. [...] The virtuous efficacy is the perfect cultivation of the harmony (of the nature). Though the realisation of this be not manifested in the person, things cannot separate themselves (from its influence). Watson: It must be that his powers are whole, though his virtue takes no form. [...] Virtue is the establishment of perfect harmony. Though virtue takes no form, things cannot break away from it. Mair: He must have been a person whose abilities were whole but whose integrity was not evident in his physical form. [...] We can tell that a person has integrity, even though it may not be evident in her physical form, because she is indispensable to all things. I might see it differently to these guys, though. 德者成和之修也 德不形者物不能離也 德者 is frequently translated as "one who has de". So let's say that a 德者 is a person/thing with de, and a 德不形者 is a person/thing with no outward/evident de, or inward de. Ai Taituo, of whom they're speaking, is a man with non-evident de: he is ugly and people would, on first sight, not exclaim how full of de he is -- but in fact he is replete with it, and after spending time with him, all love him and cannot be without him. So, why not translate as: One with integrity has cultivated complete harmony; One with inward integrity is indispensable to / loved by all. ...essentially saying that one with integrity is great, but one with non-evident integrity is even better...?

Thanks for the music Gerard. Certainly I agree that music can be very effective for anger, and especially this kind of stuff. Also agree very much with Michael's method. Breath control has helped me quite a bit in the past, maybe preventing me from hitting something I shouldn't. I don't practice as often as I should. Also agree very much with Junko's ideas -- movement is my thing these days. Walking, working out, stretching.. just generally moving, not sitting still.

I'd like to start a list of language -- words, phrases, etc -- that we (that is, English speakers, but I'm open to suggestions in other languages) use in everyday speech without really considering how meaningless what we're saying actually is, or how wrong it actually is. Turns of phrase and confused definitions that leave us befuddled without even realizing it. ☬ Most evolved and Survival of the fittest Examples that have started to bug me recently come from a misunderstanding of evolution. People say something like, "We humans are the most evolved species, we're supposed to be better than this." or "We humans are the most evolved species, we're better than the other animals." Or they talk of the "survival of the fittest": "It's Darwinism, yo. Survival of the fittest. Stronger is better!" or "Humans are the smartest. Survival of the fittest. We're the fittest, and we're winning!" Evolution is a constant process, and is basically random. It is not an intentional, "progressive", linear process. It's not a race; there is no finish line, no prize for a winner. We can talk of the "most evolved" species, but that would only involve talking about the species with the longest evolutionary history -- it has nothing to do with how well-adapted a species is to its environment. A shark is incredibly well-adapted to its environment, much more so than a human, but has seen relatively little evolutionary change compared to humans and our ancestors. Many species are remarkably ill-adapted to their environments; they die out and we barely know of their existence, though they may have been "very evolved". And still, people use these phrases in a certain way and really believe that they mean something. So many people truly believe: [a] that humans are further along in some kind of evolutionary race than all other species that we are therefore "better" than all other species, destined for cosmological greatness [c] that there is a function of life called "Survival of the Fittest" that means if you are bigger and/or smarter than someone or something else, you have an obligation to kill and maim it, or create harmful technology to exploit it It really is a misconception as damaging as fundamentalist beliefs about God and Damnation. ☬ I'd like to create a kind of reference list of this kind of misuse of language -- instances where we trick ourselves, on a large scale, into believing something because we haven't understood a concept properly, or because our language is insufficient. And I'd like people to explain themselves, at least as thoroughly as I have done above. I hope that everyone can in this way learn a little about the great effect language can have on the way we see the world without us necessarily realizing it, and that we can through this understanding all improve our communication skills and perhaps even come to a better overall understanding of the world we live in. The reason I've put this in WWW is that I would like to keep posts to well-considered examples and strict discussion of examples, and be able to remove (hide) posts/examples (and ensuing discussions) that are not properly considered. Cheers

Yeah.. I don't have a perfect answer to that. I don't think anyone is going to have trouble obtaining the text, but I understand potential legal concerns when it comes to pasting large portions of the text on here (though I'd imagine it would fall under Fair Use -- noncommercial study). And without being able to paste the text, it'd be pretty hard to discuss it, eh...

Yeah, I would suggest not going sentence by sentence for the Chinese. Quite a bit of it is relatively straightforward (i.e. whereas every single line/sentence in the Laozi is interpretable in numerous ways, many parts of the Zhuangzi are "He said this", "This happened", etc -- somewhat less open to interpretation). I'd be trying to go through it word by word in Chinese, but would only publicly share my thoughts on the stuff I was having difficulty with. This is something I've wondered about. I can't learn really well without having participated myself. I think a few of us would enjoy offering our opinions And we'll participate less if half of it has been said before. In which case it would make some sense to start the whole thing anew...? It might also make it easier, if we're focusing on a different translation, to split the text up as Mair has split it up, like Mair 1. Carefree Wandering (1) Mair 1. Carefree Wandering (2) ...etc (or something like that) And then the different discussions (old/new, Legge/Mair) are easily picked out..

After reading what Yueya and dawai have posted, I think we both misunderstood Mair a little. Maybe we should go deeper, as suggested. I've been thinking about 'doing' the Zhuangzi for well over a year now, but it is so daunting. Dipping into the English translations every so often is enjoyable and fairly easy...but at some point I would like to study the text, with the Chinese, in more depth, and create my own notes (with translation). And knowing how much of my time was consumed when I decided to study the Guodian Laozi in more depth...well, I spent a lot of time on it and still don't feel like I have grasped it. Every time I look at my translation, I see something that needs changing. Starting on the Zhuangzi has seemed even more of a daunting task. A group study with some excellent scholarly notes to help would certainly be motivation to begin. So, I'm game...I guess..

I'm not really sure what you're saying... One more thought, see if it's worth anything: If one treats the text simply as funny stories and pretty words, clever language with little depth, and glosses over the philosophical aspect, then all those stories and words one is attempting to admire become empty. The language needs the philosophy. In other words: the clever/silly language and stories are pointless without the philosophical musings they contain, and the philosophy can't be illuminated without the clever/silly language and stories. So I certainly disagree with the notion, apparent in the Mair quote in the OP (though I realize it may be taken out of context), that one should look at it literarily first and philosophically second. If I had to choose, I would call it a book of philosophy before a book of poetry. But thankfully we don't have to choose...

Well, nothing should be subjected to excessive philosophical analysis, should it? That would be excessive... But I think the text is one of the most demanding of literary/linguistic and philosophical analysis I have encountered. It is difficult to determine "a system of thought". Not because it's not a philosophical work, but because "a system of thought" isn't presented. And that's kind of the point, I think.

So... it would seem that a large portion of Bums are not big on tattoos. Each to their own, of course. If everyone enjoyed tattoos as I do, it would come at the loss of the enjoyment of many other things in the world. So my intention is not to try and coerce anyone to come to an appreciation of tattoos; I cannot be coerced into an appreciation of heavy metal, for example, or country music, and would not appreciate anyone trying. But for anyone happy to watch or take part, here's a topic about tattoos. Say what you will. To begin, as there is a general appreciation for Eastern art on TDB, I thought I'd share a little bit of history and some pieces by Chinese and Japanese artists in the Chinese/Japanese style. _________________________________ China and Japan both have a long history of tattooing, of which nobody is entirely sure of the development. Certainly, as Marco Polo attested, tattoos were common amongst the Dai people in China (a tradition which continues to this day in Yunnan and Burma), where men and women alike were marked using "five needles joined together ... they prick the flesh till the blood comes, and then they rub in a certain black coloring stuff." And the women of the Ainu people, indigenous to Japan and Russia (and who now number only in the hundreds of thousands), apparently qualified for marriage only once their lip, hand, and arm tattoos, started at 12, had been completed by the age of 16. Of the hundreds of tribes, and the cultures or subcultures that have existed between China and Japan over the last few thousand years, tattooing has been practiced by a few, and known to many. In the last few hundred years, however, in both China and Japan tattoos were more generally used as marks of punishment and therefore, like many other places in the world, associated with criminals. Minorities such as the Dai and Ainu were (and still are) just that: minorities. So, at what point did that begin to change? The Chinese author Shi Nai'an (施耐庵) is thought to have died in 1372. Though his existence, as with many other ancient figures, is disputed, it is certain that before this date, he or someone using this pseudonym wrote one of the Four Great Classical Novels of China, Water Margin 《水浒传》. Based loosely on real people and events, five of the main characters in this novel of brotherhood and courage are depicted with full-body tattoos. Lu Zhishen, for example, is nicknamed the "Flowery Monk", as his torso was adorned with flowers, and the handsome Yan Qing is described as having similar ornamentation. Shi Jin as depicted by Utagawa Kuniyoshi (1798-1861) Another prominent character is Shi Jin, a.k.a. "Nine Tattooed Dragons"（九纹龙). As described in the book, a master craftman "pricked his body with flowery embroidery; chest, shoulders, and arms, altogether nine dragons, and everyone in the county called him ‘Nine Tattooed Dragons Shi Jin’." (九纹龙史进 - it sounds a lot better in Chinese). Anyway, as you might have guessed from its status as one of the "Four Great" novels of Chinese history, this story was hugely popular in China, and later became equally popular in Japan. Translations of Water Margin into Japanese (as Suikoden) date back to at least (and probably before) 1757. With the story's immediate success, demand for the type of tattoos seen in the woodblock illustrations of the translated novel became huge, and these Japanese woodblock artists started adapting their tools to be able to inject their designs into skin. This is where irezumi - Japanese tattooing as we know it today - began. Irezumi and Suikoden, then, are irreversibly linked, as are modern Chinese and Japanese tattoo culture. Tattooing in China today wouldn't exist as it is without irezumi, and irezumi wouldn't exist without that ancient Chinese story of rebellion and heroism. I, for one, am glad for it all. by Qiangzi, Qiangzi Tattoo, Beijing by Shige, Yellow Blaze Tattoo, Yokohama by ?, Prison Break Tattoo, Shanghai by Joey Pang, Tattoo Temple, Hong Kong

Hehe. At Baiyunguan (White Cloud Temple), the one Daoist temple I visited, about ten years ago, a German friend and I talked with a priest. I knew nothing of Daoism at the time, and likely had no intelligent questions to ask. He told us about going to Oktoberfest, we talked about beer, and we got his buddy to take a photo of us. I have no idea what his daily life is/was like, but heading off to Europe for a month to drink beer... well, I suppose that coloured my ideas about what it is to be Daoist...

I was ten years late to the OK Computer party, but it blew me away. Not such a fan of their other stuff though.* Speaking of that album in particular, I feel a lot of bleakness -- I'm not sure how you don't. But equally anger, passion, beauty... * edit: Having said that, really enjoying the latest release

Discovering stuff. Been listening to BADBADNOTGOOD this week Quite enjoying this right now:

Sorry nobody seems to be able to help. I haven't looked at the Chinese closely yet. When I do skim through, I just use ctext, and usually only a small portion at a time so the screen doesn't bother me. You could print it out as Shidifen said, or perhaps create a dual-language file for Kindle? I have used HTML to transfer a couple of online texts for Kindle viewing... In fact, I might try that sometime... if you don't

I always forget about this site, and you usually remind me It seems to be one of the few online 'places' where the Liushutong 六书通 collection is available to view... seems like the LST should be more popular..?