dust

It was a rhetorical question. migrant An animal that migrates refugee A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster Language matters. Very much. The way we talk about, see, and consequently treat, these people is important. It is hardly excusable to use grossly incorrect terminology when you can find out these very simple definitions at, literally, the click of a button. But I'm pretty sure that you know that migrants are not defined as "refugees with money"; I'm pretty sure your common sense extends at least as far as realizing that not all refugees are penniless, and that in fact many will use all they have, money and life, to flee from war and potential persecution. There are migrants, yes. I have been a migrant. These people we're seeing on the news every day, these people dying in refrigerated trucks and drowning in the ocean, are refugees.

Migrants, or refugees?

Had forgotten about this. What's the unknown concept? It's a good translation, certainly my preferred kind of style. Concise, direct, fairly elegant, and well-formatted.

Maybe you should catch a plane over there and see for yourself

兵法 could also be translated "Skills", "Rules", or "Methods" of War (or of "Military" or "Weapons"). I would urge people not to read too deeply into the "Art" part of the common translation -- it is a treatise, not a painting! Well.. we do certainly disagree IMO, a holistic understanding of the text comes from a clear understanding of the language and concepts the author used. Sunzi was not Laozi -- SZ's language is very much more clear and easily interpreted. Obviously not entirely clear and easy, but very rarely intentionally vague or layered. Again, it's a treatise, not a poem. Most difficulties in translation lie in the inherent ambiguity (and ancientness) of the language of Sunzi's time more than any intentional doublespeak. If we have versions with very large differences in language, it is because someone fucked up along the way somewhere, not because Sunzi wanted to confuse us with different versions. But we can agree to disagree.. in fact, I appreciate the very different perspectives on TDB -- that's why I'm still here reading and discussing..! It's been very helpful..

I just mean that these 2 different Chinese versions appear to be diametrically opposed in meaning. If this is the case, one or other must be correct, but not both. I think that the question is: Which makes more sense? And I think the answer is: The older version.

Well.. yeah.. we can try and put it all together to make it make sense, but it's not intended to be put together like that. One version must be incorrect, and I'd suggest that it's the received. The extant version as a whole makes more sense (in Chinese or English) and translates far better into English. My main problems are that: - the word 餘 literally means a surplus or excess of stuff -- food, supplies, etc. It has nothing to do with strength, as Legge translates it; but if he was using an 'incorrect' version, he can't be blamed for letting the text get the better of him - I have no idea why the Sonshi version is so inelegant. The English is horrible. It seems that they're working from the Hequeshan ('correct') version, but why translate in such a way? "One takes on sufficiency defending.." ?? What does that mean?

不可勝者守也 可勝者攻也 守則不足 攻則有餘 Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength. Legge One takes on invincibility defending; one takes on vulnerability attacking. One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking. Sonshi The thing is, neither makes much sense, and the English in both is horribly inelegant. They have clearly struggled to make the concept work. We know from the Hequeshan text (transcription here) that the Chinese should probably be (with the bit after it added, because it's also different): 不可勝守 可勝攻也 守則有餘 攻則不足 昔善守者臧九地之下動於九天之上 故能自保而全勝也 Which means that (in my opinion) it should be translated: To secure against defeat, defend; in attack, victory is uncertain Defense means a surplus (of food etc); attack means a dearth Those of old skilled in defense hid in the deep recesses of the earth, moved in the highest reaches of the sky It is such that they were able to protect themselves and achieve victory over all Suppose it should have been obvious, especially after dealing with all the different versions of Laozi, that there would be at least one extant text that disagreed with the received version. But I'm just now realizing how many little differences there are between the Hequeshan and the received text. Will keep an eye on it.

Not sure how I missed your post but yes, it did make my post fairly redundant. When I say "lead by example", I don't honestly expect that anyone is going to follow my example. In fact I know from experience that many people are uncomfortable around me. But there's no way I can do things the way the majority does. That spirit's just not in me (as I know it's not in most who frequent this forum). In the end, there's no answer to it -- as we all should know by now, we cannot change the world; we cannot make everything happy and soft, we cannot make all the humans behave sensibly... and we probably shouldn't want to. But I don't feel like riding the current either.

In a 'democracy' such as ours (whether you live in the USA or UK or almost anywhere else), the infrequent political vote does not carry nearly as much influence as the daily economic vote. What we choose to buy affects what the retailers choose to sell, which affects which producers are successful, the means of production, etc. I refuse to place the blame solely on the political system; everyone is responsible, individually. Also an issue. I do not know the answer. Again, with much of this we can still vote with our money.. or rather, with our lifestyle. These things are too far gone for talk of collective political change to be of any use. Most people either don't know, or just don't care. Either way, the rich masses are not going to be talked out of their comfortable & extraordinarily wasteful lifestyles, and the rest are still going to want their phones and upgrades. I figure the only thing to do is "lead by example".

You've noticed that your bones are shrinking? You know that milk made you taller? Hmm. Certainly there is little to no evidence that ingesting lots of calcium is actually beneficial to bone health; rather, the evidence seems to link higher consumption of certain foods/nutrients (including calcium) to higher rates of fracture. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-27302010000200012&script=sci_arttext http://inspirehealthykids.com/2015/01/20/is-milk-a-good-source-of-calcium-for-kids/

No, I wouldn't imagine many Americans have, but she is a household name in the UK. Though the reporter did refer to her as "international star"... which only goes to show the esteem in which certain "stars" are held, the pride we have in our nations' chosen ones. Whole news segments are dedicated to the funeral services of people who used to sing quite well....

Vaguely listening to the news earlier, in particular a segment about Cilla Black's funeral, I was struck by the superfluous use of the word "star". "The international star Cilla Black..." "The star's funeral..." "Many other stars will be in attendance..." "What do you think Cilla would have thought about all these stars at her funeral?" ... etc A person stars in a movie, or other performance, and is the star. Someone who does well at starring in things becomes a more general star, or maybe even... a superstar. Impressive. If you meet one of these people, you might get star-struck. Beware... By the by, the word 明星 mingxing in Chinese literally means "bright star" and is used in exactly the same way to refer to celebrities as the noun "star" in English. Not sure what to think about all this. None of my friends have any desire to be famous, but many people I know are interested in celebrity culture, and I know that a portion of the worldwide population are quite obsessed with celebrity -- being one, or knowing all about them. People have been infatuated with celebrity for centuries; nothing new here. I am certain that people would still be very taken with it all if we didn't have such an excessive word for "person who excels at being in the spotlight". But I do wonder if a slightly less radical word would help keep things in perspective.

Gah.. I was kinda hoping to draw someone out for a little argument. Seems that nobody wants to get too deep into this subject. As you may be aware by now, I do eat meat, and by no means do I believe that my diet is entirely healthy or balanced.. and I know it's not 100% local. But feel it important to keep a discussion going (at least in my head!) as to the benefits and damages our modern meat-heavy omnivorous lifestyles have on ourselves and the wider environment...

Yes, we are omnivores; we can eat meat. But: - being an 'omnivore' doesn't mean we have to eat both meat and plants. It's a choice; we absolutely do not need meat to live and be healthy - everything is available to us. Nobody in any relatively wealthy nation can claim that meat is their only option - to many, eating meat in itself is not the issue -- the problem is with how we go about producing animal products That last point is the most important. I feel that animal cruelty should affect humans more than it seems to. Most people I meet are unwilling to hear about the way many animals are treated, simply saying "But I need my meat, so... I don't want to know." Never mind that they could choose to spend a little more money on a lower amount but higher quality of meat, and that this would (almost universally) also improve their long-term health (as well as reducing the number of animals killed and the cruelty involved in the process). Some on this forum seem to use the "Daoist" ideal of harmony with nature to excuse their dietary habits; "It's the food chain, we eat meat, it's natural." But modern agriculture and food production is so disconnected from the wider ecosystem that almost nobody, even those who grow their own food, actually eats a healthy, balanced, local diet. It has nothing to do with harmony with nature and everything to do with poor education and oblivious self-obsession.

Am I going crazy? Michael posted it above..! You already commented on it..!

Pretty sure it's both. Or neither..

There doesn't seem to be much to say about ch.3, does there? It's excellent advice. Nothing to argue with, nothing to be confused about, as far as I can tell.

For sure, but I would imagine that there's been a variation between them. It might be harder for a non-Brit to differentiate. As Apech says, GoT offers a (small?) variety of authentic accents.

That's just not true. The majority of the poor would've been the majority of the country... If you've ever been to the UK, you'll know that it is home to an incredible variation of regional accents. The "English" accent you hear on American TV is generally faux-Cockney -- not realistic.

The "Natural Order" is corrupted in modern human society. The few things that it is claimed that we can only get from animal products are readily available in a wild/natural environment. B12 is produced by a bacteria that resides in the intestines; the same bacteria is found in natural water sources. It is only because we "purify" all our water that most people nowadays can only get it from eating meat (or supplements). And vitamin D? Go outside, get some sun. That simple.

Language is constantly changing. I've often heard people bemoan the misuse of certain words, complaining that people don't know "proper English" anymore and that it'll all be lost soon. I'm sure people have been complaining in this way for as long as there's been language. And of course, yes: in order for language to be of any use, it needs rules, continuity; but at the same time, all of the world's modern languages are a result of centuries of people mixing and playing with and, often, misusing language. Living languages become rich with meaning precisely because they are fluid. What bothers me more than this 'misuse' of language is the use of outdated and meaningless language. A word exists, so we think it must mean something, and that this meaning must be valid. From Google: Race1: a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course. Race2: each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Obviously there was a point at which a majority of humans genuinely believed that other humans from far-flung places, with different skin tones and different facial features etc, were actually a different category of animal, not classifiable as "human", or at least not as the same kind of human. Now, though, it is obvious that this is nonsense. We're obviously not all the same, but we are just as obviously not able to be divided into distinct groups. There are no major divisions. We all share in a continuously changing web of characteristics; like a very complicated, multi-dimensional colour wheel. If common sense isn't enough for anyone to understand this, here is a study that illustrates why the idea of race is nonsense: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC515312/ I know that there is some racist sentiment among some on TDB, so please be clear: anyone who wishes to comment in this discussion must fully grasp and appreciate that there are no major divisions between us; there is no such thing as 'race'. Any responses deviating from this understanding will be removed. A problem I see is that this word, "race", though basically meaningless and (in comparison to our deeper understanding of humanity) very much outdated, is still in very common use. The fact that there are still many social divisions between perceived "races" fuels the notion that there are major and insurmountable genetic differences between people of.. different geographical ancestries? But this isn't the only problem; at the same time, the fact that the word "race" is a part of our everyday language, and that we seem to have few other ways to talk of differences between people, perpetuates the social belief that "race" is a legitimate concept, when deep down we all know that it's not.

This is more or less how I've attempted to explain it in the past. In my opinion, you've 'got it'; or at least a part of it. Firstly, I'd like to restate something I've said before: I think that self-so is the perfect translation of ziran. Secondly, I'm going to question Komjathy too I'd like to point out the inherent conflict implied when we say that we should be ourselves and follow our own nature without following our own selfish desires. Humans are already a manifestation of the Way; to stop and question our own nature, being told that we should be wuwei and ziran but only if that means being simple and selfless and ethical, only serves to create more questions and confusion. To be self-so, to follow one's "natural condition", will often entail being murderous, jealous, and greedy, as well as being compassionate, gentle, and "selfless". Water, always following its own nature, can be as destructive a force as we know of, or it can settle and be still, deep in the Earth for aeons. A cow, or hippo, or many other an animal, will be generally soft and at ease -- until threatened, or scared, or disturbed in any way, at which point it may rampage and kill. Robber Zhi, again: Looking at the subject in this way, we see that good men do not arise without having the principles of the sages, and that Zhi could not have pursued his course without the same principles. But the good men in the world are few, and those who are not good are many - it follows that the sages benefit the world in a few instances and injure it in many.

OK. I misunderstood. But I'm going to continue to argue with you, because I wonder the following: Is the idea of wu wei to do with values? Or are you applying a certain morality to a concept that is not inherently moral in nature? Robber Zhi was well-versed in the Way and its virtue, and made his way stealing things from others. In this, he applied wu wei. 吾所謂臧者，非仁義之謂也，臧於其德而已矣；吾所謂臧者，非所謂仁義之謂也，任其性命之情而已矣 (Zhuangzi) When I pronounce men to be good, I am not speaking of their benevolence and righteousness; the goodness is simply (their possession of) the qualities (of the Dao). When I pronounce them to be good, I am not speaking of what are called benevolence and righteousness; but simply of their allowing the nature with which they are endowed to have its free course. (Legge) My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence and righteousness; it means being expert in regard to your Virtue, that is all. My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence or righteousness; it means following the true form of your inborn nature, that is all. (Watson)

Perhaps you took the 'effortless' part a little too literally? I think that the forum search function requires a chain of more than 3 characters/letters in order to return anything, so searching 'wu' or 'wei' or 'wu wei' won't work. But you can use Google: site:thedaobums.com "wu wei" Anyway.. Could do. If one can get by sitting under a fruit tree and eating the windfall, and one is happy, then why not?