dust

Well, I appreciate Moeller's interpretation, and it offers a lot to think about. I don't think that there is any mysticism involved... we're talking about dreaming. Everyone dreams. To infer a mystical aspect is fine, if someone for some reason wants to go there, but there is not one single reason to think that ZZ was being anything other than philosophical. There's no mention of sages. And one might infer that he's talking of "past lives", but it's not explicit, and it'd be the only time he does that, wouldn't it?

Well, you know.. to someone like me, that sounds like a challenge... Firstly, let me say that I agree about Giles's translation. It is not good. "I" should certainly not be used, and in general it is too specific and presumptive. But Moeller has given us enough to go on as to why Giles's is no good, I think. On to Moeller's own: For sure, no such remembrance is mentioned in the text...but neither is it made clear that ZZ does not remember the dream. If we're talking about a direct, loyal translation, we must not specify either way. Let's look at the text itself, with a loyal (& non-presumptive) multi-choice translation: 昔者莊周夢為胡蝶 once/formerly zhuang zhou dream become butterfly 栩栩然胡蝶也 content understand butterfly 自喻適志與 self explain/understand fit/just will/ideal/remember/consciousness 不知周也 not know zhou 俄然覺則蘧蘧然周也 suddenly awake then leisurely/surprised understand zhou 不知周之夢為胡蝶與 not know zhou dream become butterfly 胡蝶之夢為周與 (or) butterfly dream become zhou 周與胡蝶則必有分矣 zhou and/with butterfly then must have difference 此之謂物化 this is called wuhua For me, 物化 wuhua is important. We cannot claim that either rememberance or forgetfulness are implied in the text; we can only infer. But we can figure out a more precise meaning for wuhua, and see if that helps. Bear in mind that it literally means the changing/transformation of things/stuff: 物 = things (as in wanwu, the ten thousand things) 化 = change, transform, melt, die and it seems to be a contraction of the structure 万物化生 "the ten thousand things die and are (re)born", i.e. the life cycle http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%E7%89%A9%E5%8C%96 It comes up a number of times in the Zhuangzi. Let's look at instances where it appears alone as 物化 (not as 万物化生): http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=2789#s10036103 Here, we might want to read the whole chapter so as not to take it out of context (the speaker is using it to describe action that should not be taken): or, less specifically: Then, from The Way of Heaven: Then, from Ingrained Ideas (using almost the exact same sentence as the previous): Then, from The Full Understanding of Life: wuhua also comes up in the Liezi, Wenzi, and Huainanzi, and some historical and medical texts, but generally in all of these it means "the transformation of things" or the cycle of life and death. Except in that last one, about the artisan Chui. How can one's fingers operate like the cycle of life and death? What ZZ means here, I think, is a seamless, fluid motion; a constant rising and falling; no beginning, only spirit. Just like Cook Ding, Chui is moving with Heaven. 周與胡蝶則必有分矣 Between Zhou and a/the butterfly, there must be a difference/distinction 此之謂物化 This is called wuhua The experience of dreaming is.. dreamy. We often don't know that we're dreaming, and when we wake up we often forget that we dreamt at all. If we do remember, it might be vivid and realistic or fuzzy and fading. Why does ZZ have to be implying total remembrance or total forgetfulness of the dream? And, going back, 俄然覺則蘧蘧然周也 suddenly awake then leisurely/surprised understand zhou The meaning of 蘧蘧 is unclear to me, but I can find no definition of it as "fully and completely" -- more likely, it means "leisurely" or "surprised" In The Revolution of Heaven, implying to me that ZZ's other use of 蘧, in the Butterfly Dream, carries the 'leisurely' connotation rather than 'surprised' So he suddenly awoke, and then leisurely realised that he was Zhuang Zhou. Again, no total remembrance or forgetfulness is implied, I think.

Again, I do know where both of you are coming from. But the way I see it: what if nobody who (like us) believes in a life of compassion and balance were to vote? (Voting for the more compassionate/balanced option, whatever one thinks that is) Then who would be voted in charge of things? As awful as some of the current leading party reps are, it could be a whole lot worse. And it's not just about a little money for the average family. Apparently there are 900,000 people reliant on food banks here. More people, people with jobs, unable to support themselves without handouts and struggle. And let's not forget people in other countries who we, with our ruthless consumerist system, keep locked into a cycle of poverty and abuse. The Tories have cut NHS spending and plan to cut education spending whilst increasing defence spending (see manifesto*). The UK makes a huge profit from selling arms overseas, including to not-very-nice countries like Saudi, UAE, Israel, Russia -- the Lib Dems and Green both actually have plans to rectify that (whether or not they'd work is another story). Neither of the major parties are actually doing anything that they say they are. They're all liars. They know they can't just turn the deficit into a surplus, but seem to think that they're allowed to make that kind of claim. They should all, Labour and Tory alike, be thrown in jail for fraud, false advertising, aiding and abetting human rights abuses, et cetera... So yes, I think that at some point, it does come down to apathy. You might not need politics, but politics needs everyone. The system is shit, First Past the Post doesn't work, most MPs are scumbags....blah blah.. and so you might not see a difference, not see your vote counting, but if certain parties/people were to gain power you would almost certainly feel the result. It could be a lot worse. Farage might be a joke, but if the political atmosphere turned to large-scale support of a party like UKIP, we would all be in fucking big trouble... !! Anyway... hah. My intent was not to be that guy! (The guy chastising people for not voting.) In a 'free country', we should certainly feel free to vote or not, as we like. Pressuring people to vote "Because World War 2" is silly. I just get a bit excited sometimes. *

Apologies then I assumed...shouldn't assume things..

Belief in race -- that all people are classifiable into distinct sets, on the basis of which we may judge them, and that one's skin colour is something to be particularly proud of (as opposed to one's individual character) -- is not 'enlightened' Belief that one's country is anything more than a set of geopolitical boundaries, and that this useless conceptual entity is somehow 'worth fighting for', is not 'enlightened' Belief in God is not 'enlightened' Helping children is cool. (But I'm not sure how he helps children by punching people in the face...?) Just my opinion, of course. Almost every professional athlete or artist is 'awakened'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes So many rapists, abusers, murderers, violent drug addicts, etc... Art is probably even more of a minefield. Many artists are insane... Boxing and cage fighting are primal, sure, but I wouldn't call them 'low'. A boxer has as much potential to be 'awakened' as anyone else. There are some really astute, intelligent, compassionate fighters (or, at least, that is how they appear).

Bring back Pluto

Seriously, who the fuck is voting for the "All Our Problems Can Be Fixed by Building a Great Wall to Stop Dirty Immigrants" Party?

Yeah, I watched the video after I posted. I didn't see it coming.. People definitely underestimate Brand's intelligence. Ian Hislop was making him out to be an imbecile on Have I Got News for You the other night...but the intelligence and fluidity with which Brand speaks, and the amount of actual information he cites, is far more impressive than I've seen from any of the party leaders. He knows exactly what he's talking about, exactly what he's doing. If anything, he's probably been planning all along to do a U-turn and promote Labour, and Miliband gave him an opportunity to do it. But let's not make it all about Russell Brand! I've been getting Tory propaganda through the door daily.. even Sunday... it's disgusting. Fear-mongering nonsense. There's no way I'm voting Labour either, though. 2015 election policies - Defence: From Tories, some trigger-happy, Empire-centric ideas. From Lib Dems, some peaceful, helpful, compassionate ideas. From Labour..just fairly pathetic.

Isn't Russell more pro-Green? I watch his Trews fairly often. I like him. But I do think that urging people who believe in the same things that he does (e.g. compassion, equality, self-actualization) not to vote is urging a large part of the population to give way to those voting on the other side (e.g. rich wankers, xenophobes, people who hate any kind of change) I know what you mean, and I have considered not voting, but... do they? Surely the political system affects you?

Yeah..that sounds like a thing..

Well...you're not wrong with your #2 there. Pretty sure I still like him though. Comparing the main manifesto points yesterday, I side mostly with Green and Lib Dem. A UKIP vote up in the poll here... has me intrigued...

Is that (in your opinion) bad?

(giggles) Yes, I didn't respond at first simply because it is a question I have seen addressed a number of times on here and have already discussed numerous times with myself (in my head). I can't offer much more than others have. As we all know, 道可道，非恒道 A way that can walked/told is not the Eternal Way (Laozi) or 道昭而不道 The way that is named/displayed is not the Way (Zhuangzi) so... seems pretty futile trying, doesn't it?

I voted Lib Dem last time. Purely because I like Clegg. His background, and his perspective, is... impressive. Not sure what to think of Lib Dems now though. They have accomplished some, but...I feel like a more extreme option is needed. Perhaps I'll vote Green.

We'll start with the Legge translation, and perhaps in the next couple of posts people could post any other versions that they're fond of. I'd like to look at all parts in one thread, but we'll see how that goes. _____________________________________________ 《刻意 - Ingrained Ideas》 1 刻意尚行，離世異俗，高論怨誹，為亢而已矣，此山谷之士，非世之人，枯槁赴淵者之所好也。語仁義忠信，恭儉推讓，為修而已矣，此平世之士，教誨之人，遊居 學者之所好也。語大功，立大名，禮君臣，正上下，為治而已矣，此朝廷之士，尊主強國之人，致功并兼者之所好也。就藪澤，處閒曠，釣魚閒處，無為而已矣，此 江海之士，避世之人，閒暇者之所好也。吹呴呼吸，吐故納新，熊經鳥申，為壽而已矣，此道引之士，養形之人，彭祖壽考者之所好也。 Ingrained ideas and a high estimate of their own conduct; leaving the world, and pursuing uncommon ways; talking loftily and in resentful disparagement of others - all this is simply symptomatic of arrogance. This is what scholars who betake themselves to the hills and valleys, who are always blaming the world, and who stand aloof like withered trees, or throw themselves into deep pools, are fond of. Discoursing of benevolence, righteousness, loyalty, and good faith; being humble and frugal, self-forgetful and courteous - all this is simply symptomatic of (self-)cultivation. This is what scholars who wish to tranquillise the world, teachers and instructors, men who pursue their studies at home and abroad, are fond of. Discoursing of their great merit and making a great name for themselves; insisting on the ceremonies between ruler and minister; and rectifying the relations between high and low - all this shows their one object to be the promotion of government. This is what officers of the court, men who honour their lord and would strengthen the state and who would do their utmost to incorporate other states with their own, are fond of. Resorting to marshes and lakes; dwelling in solitary places; occupying themselves with angling and living at ease - all this shows their one object to be to do nothing. This is what gentlemen of the rivers and seas, men who avoid the society of the world and desire to live at leisure, are fond of. Blowing and breathing with open mouth; inhaling and exhaling the breath; expelling the old breath and taking in new; passing their time like the (dormant) bear, and stretching and twisting (the neck) like a bird - all this simply shows the desire for longevity. This is what the scholars who manipulate their breath, and the men who nourish the body and wish to live as long as Peng Zu are fond of. 若夫不刻意而高，無仁義而修，無功名而治，無江海而閒，不道引而壽，無不忘也，無不有也，澹然無極而眾美從之，此天地之道，聖人之德也。 As to those who have a lofty character without any ingrained ideas; who pursue the path of self-cultivation without benevolence and righteousness; who succeed in government without great services or fame; who enjoy their ease without resorting to the rivers and seas; who attain to longevity without the management (of the breath); who forget all things and yet possess all things; whose placidity is unlimited, while all things to be valued attend them: such men pursue the way of heaven and earth, and display the characteristics of the sages.

Well...if you really want to be... I was taught for a long time in a Catholic private school environment: suit and tie, nod and smile to everyone, "Yes sir, sorry sir"; always taught to hold doors and, by my grandmother, even to pull out chairs for women. Nowadays, I have to catch myself, because I'm polite and helpful to women, but might tend to ignore a man in the same situation. And why? It feels weird to hold a door open for a man of my own age, but for a woman I'll do it without thinking. But that man and that woman are both equally capable of opening and walking through that door, and equally capable of appreciating my assistance if I hold it for them. Giving the woman preference is, realistically, ludicrous. There's absolutely no logical reason for it, and though I will not label myself 'feminist' (or 'Taoist' or any other -ist), I absolutely understand the position. So, yes, you have your own ideas, and that is of course fine.. but in my opinion, though all people are different and there is a more obvious separation between male and female, to suggest that, in our treatment of people, we should not start from a position of absolute equality and proceed from there on an individual basis, is one of the more harmful perspectives in society.

I like parts of your post, but: Why catch yourself? Why not just say "What's up dude?" ?? If he wants to be a dude...let him be a dude... What difference does one being male or female or anything in between have on how much respect you show them? All people deserve an equal amount of respect, no? (until they show otherwise..) My skull is as thick as anyone's...at least we can admit it

Well whether it's clear or not, we enjoy debating, so will probably tend to present it as un-clearly as possible 2 things I found interesting Firstly, (and perhaps someone will tell me that this is meaningless, but...) that we have the use of the personal pronoun I / me in the middle section, but in the next section, we're talking about a public executioner. Secondly, the construct 若... 则 -- if...then 若民恆且畏死 if the people always afraid death/dying 則而為畸者 then (standard/and/however/if/so/already) this/can make/become oddity/exception 吾將得而殺之 I (will) get/have this/can kill 若民恆且必畏死 if the people always must (be made to?) afraid death/dying 則恆又司殺者 then (standard/and/however/if/so/already) always have public executioner So, firstly, why I will kill? This is specific: it is not "we" or "someone" or "the ruler" -- it is "ME" Secondly, if the second part means "If the people must be made to be afraid, then (the standard/rule is that) there must be a public executioner" then the middle part, translated in the same way, must mean something like, "If the people are always fearful of death, then (the standard/rule is that) there can be (made/become) exceptions" ...

Ah I see what you mean. No, Taoism probably won't help with specific 'right/wrong?' decisions. Obviously I have the same kind of questions (just bought myself 2kg of Meridian peanut butter from Holland & Barrett -- 100% peanuts!) but I think that acting in a 'Taoist' way about this kind of thing simply means going with your gut. Problems like species endangerment occur when people don't act in a holistic, intuitive way. When we become so removed from our environment that we don't even know how things like cocoa and peanuts are grown, or what they look like fresh, or what's being done in order to provide them for us. Maybe..? Yeah I've never really understood it.

I'm going to retract this.. slightly... ...and try again: 若民恆且畏死 if the people always afraid death/dying 則而為畸者 standard/and/however/if/so/already this/can make/become oddity/exception 吾將得而殺之 I (will) get/have this/can kill 夫孰敢矣 so who brave enough ?

Ooh, Jet. Nice. Do you have 'moral' questions?

That doesn't seem like it should be true (I know very well how the Chinese love their smokes), but I see that China does indeed sit relatively low. Not sure that I'll jump to blaming dairy just yet, but I will reconsider my position on smoking

Yeah. I used to buy the packets of "milk" they sell there...it's disgusting. Tastes nothing like milk. Nigh on impossible to get anything close to fresh, good milk in Beijing. I don't like to think about the many poor cows it takes to get all that "milk" to how many millions of Chinese every day...

Nobody is "meant" to be anything. There is no supreme being up in the clouds saying "Oh, he wasn't meant to be like that...sorry guys.." Things just are. And they would argue that the sickness is that their body went against their natural gender. Who are you to say that they're wrong? Maybe something went wrong in the womb, and they were born with the 'wrong' equipment. Sure, it's your 'right' to speculate on anything you want, but still not your business I don't disagree. Cool. You claim to be seeking understanding, and that's fine by me..but a lot of what you say sounds like it's coming from a place of judgement. So..speculate all you like, but I stand by everything I've said. Most importantly, that we have to understand each person on an individual basis.