dust

Yeah. I won't argue the ethics of eating meat too strongly -- I fully see where vegetarians and vegans are coming from, and have been on the cusp of veganism myself. From a perspective of human compassion, we have no excuse to kill animals for sustenance when we have numerous other ways of feeding ourselves and being completely healthy (a little bit of Marmite feeds the B12 deficit, I think?). Tim Shieff is an excellent example of the vegan lifestyle being perfectly healthy, if done right. But...well, for me, from a Taoist, holistic perspective, the way things work is that some animals eat other animals. That's not going to stop. And quickly killing a chicken when it is at its prime rather than leaving it to grow old and slow and get killed violently by a fox? Well, I'm not so compassionate that I won't take the meat for myself, I guess. Yeah it is hard. I might guess that they don't mention the 'worthless' calves because not every 'non-organic' farm will necessarily do that -- at the very least they'll want a proportion of those calves to be raised, to make up for losses (all dairy cows are eventually slaughtered, of course -- can't lose a profit).

Just to be sure, I get milk from a farm called Riverford http://www.riverford.co.uk/aboutus/animal-welfare I'm sure there'll be a place around you somewhere that offers this kind of 'produce' (can't think of a nicer word).. The veg boxes are usually full of good stuff, and the milk is delicious! Not homogenised, either -- full of lumpy cream...

Sure, there will be social causes, and religious causes, and there will also be biological and perhaps, as Michael says, past-life causes. And who knows what else. Is it really your business to speculate? Do you think you can know what's going on in the heart-mind of any particular person? And do you really not understand that everyone is different, and that if judgement must be made, it must be made on an individual basis? I think you'd do best not to blanket-label people (who don't conform to traditionally socially acceptable gender roles) as "diseased" or "sick". Some probably are -- most people are sick in some way or other -- but unless they ask you for help, it is not your concern. If you feel like trying to address imbalance, do so, but not by targeting a particular group of people and trying to "make them better". You'll only make society even sicker.

I recently watched a documentary episode by the ever-inspiring Louis Theroux. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05qkzt2/louis-theroux-transgender-kids For those who can't view iPlayer or find it elsewhere, a short review: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/11516723/Louis-Theroux-Transgender-Kids-review-excellent-storytelling.html He documents a number of kids, including a 5-year-old boy-turned-girl (he still has his male equipment, but dresses "like a girl"), and male and female teenagers going through puberty with hormone blockers to prevent natural changes. What becomes immediately clear is that this (usually) is nothing to do with sex. The youngest kids, especially, know nothing about sex -- the boys who want to be girls are influenced by gender stereotypes as much as anything, obsessed with makeup and dresses and Hello Kitty merchandise, and, in my opinion, taught by society that if one likes pink things and skirts, then one must only like pink things and skirts, and if one only likes pink things and skirts, one must in fact be a girl. At one point he interviews 2 older teens who were both born male and have both decided to become female -- except for their penises (I think they were having just their testicles removed). They have a sexual relationship, but it seems that they are not particularly specific about which gender they desire -- they find each other attractive, and that's that. So, in my opinion, all those labels are useless. You have to attempt to understand each individual, because circumstances and reasons and desires etc are different for everyone. Blanketing everyone with "weirdo" labels isn't helpful.

Yeah OK Just thought that, as he's already talking about making examples of people, he might be considering making sure that examples are made regularly so that everyone maintains that fear But yeah..no..

I've been trying to figure out what is meant by either 奇 or 畸 It seems that most translators (Henricks a notable exception) haven't even bothered to try translating it! Dictionary definitions for 奇: odd, remainder, curious, queer, strange, outstanding, surprise, wonder Dictionary definitions for 畸: odd, irregular, extraordinary I think that the translations you suggest from ZZ -- aloof, singular, exceptional -- fit fairly well with these. Something 'exceptional' is something that doesn't fit with the norm. But there's another word in there which has given me thought: 为 則而為畸者 It doesn't just say 殺畸者 (kill the exceptions), it says 則而為畸者 -- there will be (则) made (为) exceptions (奇) Or...?

In bold, you've basically summed up the main points which have lead me to believe that eating meat is OK. But (and I will try not to labour the point too much but do feel it is important), we should also consider the ethics of modern farming. We are not hunter-gatherers any longer. Factory-farmed meat is not as healthy, and does not taste as good, as free-range. And yes, many animals would eat us -- it's not out of line with the Way of Things to kill and eat something. But it is out of line to keep things in tiny cages in dark rooms, shitting all over themselves, for the duration of their lives, and in some cases killing their offspring as soon as they are born so that they can be impregnated as soon as possible (to keep producing milk)... You mention being disconnected with nature. I think that supporting this kind of farming (which we've all done if we've ever been to McDonald's or KFC or eaten a Nestle product or etc etc etc) shows a supreme lack of connection with our food. And how many people who eat meat would actually be able to kill it themselves? I'm not saying that one should have to hunt for one's food, but the fact that most couldn't bring themselves to kill an animal shows that lack of connection with the process. People don't realise where their food comes from or at what cost (including the environmental cost). So..yeah. I'm doing my best not to sound like an obnoxious vegan crusader, but...

Yeah. For 'exotic' stuff -- choc, coffee, bananas, etc -- always Fairtrade. Not sure how 'fair' it really is, though. Heard good and bad things about the effects it has. And these chocolate biscuits are an exception to my Fairtrade rule as well... No fruit sounds a little bizarre... Because of HFCS, sugar is getting a really bad rep these days, but.. we can't live without it. We literally cannot exist without sugar. And fruit is full of other good stuff! And it's delicious!! A huge majority of animals, including most primates, thrive on fruits... and humans aren't so far removed from all that.

As SC and ISQG say.. I don't believe that eating meat is "wrong", but I very strongly object to the way animals are treated in the majority of "farms" today. I love milk, chicken, beef, pork... but only buy local, free-range stuff now, from places where I am confident that the animals have not been violated and tortured their entire lives and then painfully killed in a frenzy of screams. I can't lie, there is the odd exception.. I have a packet of chocolate biscuits in the cupboard that certainly contains mass-produced cow's milk (actually, I think the production of milk involves some of the worst abuse) -- but am trying to phase it all out and eat more fruit and veggies.

Yeah. Having looked at MWD more clearly, I have a suggestion 若民恆且不畏死 if the people are unafraid of death, 若何以殺懼之也 what is the use of threatening anyone with it? 若民恆且畏死 if the people are afraid of death, 則而為畸者 some should be made into examples, (exceptions/anomalies) 吾將得而殺之 who I must find and kill, 夫孰敢矣 and then who would dare (deviate)? 若民恆且必畏死 if the people must be made to fear death (?) 則恆又司殺者 there should be a (prominent) executioner, 夫伐司殺者殺 ? 是伐大匠斲也 ? 則希不傷其手矣 ? I can't figure out the last bit because of 伐 cut down / smite I guess it is supposed to be 代 take the place of

莊子 荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃 蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄 言者所以在意，得意而忘言 吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？ 中文註釋 筌、蹄、言皆為工具，目標還是魚、免、意，只要得到和領會了精神實質，那麼這些工具都可以忘掉了。忘言之人就是指已得到和領會精神實質的人，因而與與忘言之人言，是不言之言。 《莊子》中談到兩位聖人相見而不言，因為“目擊而道存矣”(《田子方》)。照道家說，道不可道，只可暗示。言透露道，是靠言的暗示，不是靠言的固定的外延和內涵。言一旦達到了目的，就該忘掉。既然再不需要了，何必用言來自尋煩惱呢？詩的文字和音韻是如此，畫的線條和顏色也是如此。故此語也有用來表示互相默契，心照不宣的意思。 Legge Fishing-stakes are employed to catch fish; but when the fish are got, the men forget the stakes. Snares are employed to catch hares, but when the hares are got, men forget the snares. Words are employed to convey ideas; but when the ideas are apprehended, men forget the words. Fain would I talk with such a man who has forgot the words! Watson The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him? Moeller A fish trap is a means to get hold of fish You can only forget about the fish trap once you've had your fish A rabbit snare is a means to get hold of rabbits You can only forget about the rabbit snare once you've had your rabbit Words are a means to get hold of ideas You can only forget about words once you've had your ideas How could I talk to someone who has forgotten words? (whoever Marblehead quoted) The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten. The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten. The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk with. —————————————————————————————— I remember reading this in the library at university some years ago, and it's been in my head ever since. I don't remember which translation it was, but of these, Watson's comes closest. I had not ever considered an interpretation of this small paragraph other than my own from all those years ago, until a discussion started by Darkstar in the Father & Son thread revealed some differences. As the Chinese commentary above says, traps and snares and words are tools for catching things; they are not the goal. If 2 people can have a conversation without worrying about definitions, if they can grasp the essence of what one another is saying, then they can have a real conversation. Daoism says that the Dao cannot be daoed (spoken), only hinted at. Words cannot fully capture the essence, and when we talk of great thoughts and things, what are we doing but using words in an attempt to hint at the essence? Our own essence, the Great Essence... —————————————————————————————— I wonder if, especially these days, there is even more meaning to be found. A modern trawler might catch tens of thousands of fish in a day, and see half of them thrown back in. A modern man needs no rabbit snare, because he can have packs of pork and chicken delivered to his home without ever seeing a living creature. Modern people use their words to gabble and fuss, talking and texting and telling each other how words should be used and who uses them best; but who of us grasps the essence? How many catch a fish, cook it well, and appreciate it fully? How many craft the snare, skin the rabbit, and be thankful for the sustenance? How often do people take the time to sit down with each other with something to say, share some well-crafted words, and really appreciate the meaning behind them?

I am not entirely sure, but calligraphers are often traditionalists, and I think that mainland calligraphers stick to the same rules they have used for many centuries -- they have not designed new ways of writing characters If you go to http://image.baidu.com and search, these are some of the top results for searching kaishu, xingshu, caoshu: 楷書 kaishu They still use the traditional characters for “regular script" calligraphy 行書 xingshu Traditional again, as the rules are still the same as they were before Mao came along 草書 caoshu The cursive script was already based on simplification of characters (to the point that they are often completely unrecognizable) So actually, as far as I know, many 简体字 jiantizi were based on 草書 caoshu forms I hope that makes you feel a little better about it. Calligraphy in the mainland is alive and well, I believe

To be honest, I've spent much more time reading the Chinese, and referring on-and-off to various translations for help, than vigorously reading many particular translations from beginning to end...so I can't really say... I think John Wu's is the only one I've read from beginning to end. It's the only one I own a hard copy of. dawei or TT are probably better qualified to answer.. so... guys...?

Yeah. It's not easy. After living in Beijing, with 简体, for some years, I am quite behind in my 繁体. I sometimes wish I had gone to Taiwan first. But I know many mainlanders who can read 繁体 perfectly well...

I forgot about this. He seemed quite nice... wonder why he got so aggressive...

Sorry. I meant that my original reply was a little harsh, or a little blunt -- too easily offended, I was. Hope my newer response is a bit better.

edit: a little harsh. I'll try again. You seem to have (I think, somewhat deliberately) misrepresented everything I said. Words are not the goal. That was my main point, and it is based on a Chinese source, not just my own random, thoughtless musings...! Most conversations are replete with missings-of-the-point so that participants can argue over the way someone said something rather than looking at the point that they are trying to get across. People love to do this (though they are not usually conscious of it). I used to do this all the time. The point I was trying to get across is that, as you later mention, we must see the thread behind the words. I'm not sure that 'vilify' is what I was doing, and I was only wondering if this meaning could be found -- not that it was originally intended. I realize that it is probably a divergence from the original text, which is why I put it in at the end after a line break. I do not mean to belittle anyone's hard work, but I do indeed believe that many people are wayyyy too far divorced from the reality of the food that they eat etc.

Ah. Yeah... says it all, really Agh.

Etiquette, manners -- doing things the way one is taught is 'proper'. OK. Makes sense.

I get the pyramid, but in particular what does ritual have to do with it? Hmm... pu as 'blank slate' newbies turning into well-schooled regulators. Yeah..ok (makes sense) OK Still not convinced that 溪 and 显 could be so easily conflated... ...but this makes more sense. A lot more sense given the 武 I can definitely see how 洽 harmony and 谷 valley could be conflated. And we've already suggested a similar meaning for 谷 -- a balancing agent -- so yes this makes sense But...I'm not sure about the whole thing. Are you convinced of this, or still working on it?

It isn't that boring is it?! Looking at past translations, http://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap28 http://terebess.hu/english/tao/addiss.html#Kap28 http://terebess.hu/english/tao/henricks.html#Kap28 They all sound nice, but as TT has pointed out... none of them make any sense whatsoever (unless interpreting on a deliberately ambiguous level that might be something vaguely to do with neidan..) And while I (as usual) don't agree that all of TT's homework is relevant, I think some of it is. I think there's a middle ground here which perhaps comes closest to the original meaning. Let's look at this more closely ..馮軾結靷西入秦者，無不欲彊秦而弱齊；馮軾結靷東入齊者，無不欲彊齊而弱秦。此雄雌之國也，勢不兩立為雄，雄者得天下矣。」 "..of those riding hard West into Qin, there is none who would not see Qin strong and Qi weak; of those riding hard East into Qi, there is none who would not see Qi strong and Qin weak. Where 2 countries fight for dominance, there is no room for 2 dominant -- the most dominant obtains all." So when we get to Laozi, and he says 知雄 守雌， he quite likely is talking of nation-states, but might be saying "Know the dominant, protect the submissive", and following up with how states should not fight for dominance but maintain harmony and thus "return to infancy" This doesn't seem to make much sense...?

Considering how Confucius and others are portrayed, I don't think we can infer that ZZ thought of anyone as anything in particular -- he played with names and ideas. He probably didn't much care whether Kongzi or Laozi were Rujia 儒家 or Daojia 道家 or Houjia 猴家 Can you elaborate on the relevance of this? http://www.zdic.net/c/b/149/323091.htm Could qujiu be talking of the people "assuming office or not"? i.e. Once they have been taught to think clearly (black and white) they will know whether or not to assume office, and then be able to govern...? just a thought Interesting so far. Will write more later

TT, how about hitting us with a full translation based on all your homework?

I don't think we're talking about baths. Some have translated as bath, but as I suggested above, 溪 xi brook, creek, stream, valley stream, gully 谷 gu valley, valley stream, pool, paddy The Guodian and Mawangdui both use 浴 as valley, e.g. 江海所以為百浴王 The rivers and oceans are lords of the hundred valleys In fact, in the Guodian, 谷 (valley) is used as "desire" and 浴 (bath) is used as valley, so...yeah... We might be talking about chickens though, if we consider the Mawangdui: 知其雄，守其雌，為天下溪。為天下溪，恆德不雞 Know the male, protect the female, be the brook of the world. Being the brook of the world, De will never chicken 知其雄，守其雌，為天下鷄。為天下鷄，恆德不離 Know the male, protect the female, be the chicken of the world. Being the chicken of the world, De will never leave

Maybe. I had considered 名器. But 器 is used many times in the Laozi as "utensil" or "talent"... why would we suddenly be talking about titles and privileges? And what does this have to do with the 朴 uncarved block? Why is such a very Daoist idea 朴 being combined with such a Confucian one 名器 ? 官长 could be one or many officials...what difference does it make, really? "Great control" I can accept, but... let's be careful about associating this fairly insane passage from the Hanfeizi with the Laozi. We're now mixing Legalist ideas in with the Confucian ones that already don't really fit with the Daoist ones...? Yeah, it doesn't feel right.. Well I feel like pointing out that a creek is a stream...! How do we differentiate between xi and gu? 溪 xi brook, creek, stream, valley stream, gully 谷 gu valley, valley stream, pool, paddy Translating 谷 as valley, a V-shaped area, would give a representation of the female Translating 溪 as a small river, or even the stream of the valley, might give a representation of the male?