dust

Part 1: I wouldn't say it's about wondering "Hmm.. am I a butterfly today?" By definition, no human is a butterfly. Like... no apple is a banana. Red is not yellow. But apples grow, ripen, decay, merge back with the earth, and a part of each becomes a part of a banana. We see this as obvious -- modern science has known this for a long time now -- but when ZZ was writing, was this common belief? Or something he might have tried to illustrate with such an analogy? I think this is something he's trying to tell us. That we're all a part of the same 'system'. Apples, bananas, butterflies, humans... in the end, we're all just dust. Except that he couldn't say it with modern 'scientific' language, because it didn't exist back then. And he was a cryptic S.O.B. Part 2: How do you know that you're not a butterfly dreaming that it's Marblehead? The movies The Matrix and Fight Club explored similar ideas with some success; The Matrix being an extension of the 'brain in a jar' thought experiment in popular philosophy; how do we know that our reality is 'true' reality? Fight Club being a partial exploration of internal conflict and dual consciousness (as well as a bunch of other stuff); how do we know that we are who we think we are? There are lots of cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder; less seriously, who hasn't at some point wondered what it would be like to be someone else, or an animal of some sort? These are questions that have fascinated people for centuries; why should ZZ be any different?

I must look at the text, at least of the inner chapters, until I can find any reason not to, as if ZZ has something to say with everything he says. What I mean is, each passage has a meaning. If it didn't, why did he write it? Even if a passage seems not to have a clear meaning, the meaning will come from what is not clear. The passage is clearly about confusion of realities. I don't think this is in question: it says, directly, that ZZ didn't know if he was himself or a butterfly. Whether we translate it as 'transformation', 'merging', 'separating', or even transformation as 'rebirth', we must come to a similar conclusion about his meaning: at the very least, that we are who we are, but we're also not as "me" as we think we are.

Yes..I agree with you Mr Storm. But isn't appearance something? Most would not suggest that it's wrong to appreciate human-made music, poetry, literature, painting, sculpture, etc, or similar beautiful things in nature -- birdsong, sunshine, flowers, the Milky Way, etc... So why would we suggest that it's wrong to appreciate the human form? And if it's not wrong to appreciate the human form, is it better to appreciate the so-called "inside" of a person? A person can no more choose their 'original' character than their 'original' appearance. And if both one's outer appearance and inner character are equally a part of the person, and equally appreciable as something of wonder and beauty or of shame and disgust, I can see how some people, in the same way that people on TTB are out to develop their inner character, would like to develop their outer appearance. It's a shame that people can't just be happy with who they are, inside and outside, but I don't agree that one is necessarily worth more than the other. When all recognize beauty as beauty, ugliness is born.

Not a Watts fan, eh? Because of the insanely loud snoring man in the apartment next door, for a long while Alan's lectures were one of the only things enabling me to drown out the noise, relax, and thus get to sleep during weeknights. So I've listened to Alan a lot..! .... I find that he interprets the Eastern philosophies philosophically, which is also my intent, and I rarely find something I disagree with. Anyway... if, by taking the balls apart, I'm causing them to lose their isness, what are you doing by taking reality apart? (i.e. dividing into different things, individuals, places, fauna, flora, whatever..). Doesn't reality itself then lose its isness?

Numbered, coloured, yes, but in larger life the balls would correspond perhaps to atoms, and would, from that beginning, come together in different ways with other balls to form larger structures. And those larger structures would be made of specific balls, perhaps, but each ball would become part of countless structures, and each recognizably 'individual' structure would be made at different times from different balls. "The more a thing tends to be permanent, the more it tends to be lifeless" (Alan Watts) This is very true. A rock is, to us, comparatively lifeless -- and its physical structure remains the same for a long time. We are very much 'alive' -- and our physical structure is constantly changing.

惡 亞 as 'evil' or 'ugly' be used as 'bad', right?

I don't think it's directly speaking of reincarnation. And later in the same passage: 孔子曰：「彼遊方之外者也，而丘游方之內者也。外內不相及，而丘使女往弔之，丘則陋矣。彼方且與造物者為人，而遊乎天地之一氣。彼以生為附贅縣疣，以死為決潰癰。夫若然者，又惡知死生先後之所在！假於異物，託於同體，忘其肝膽，遺其耳目，反覆終始，不知端倪，芒然彷徨乎塵垢之外，逍遙乎無為之業。彼又 惡能憒憒然為世俗之禮，以觀眾人之耳目哉！」 Confucius replied, 'Those men occupy and enjoy themselves in what is outside the (common) ways (of the world), while I occupy and enjoy myself in what lies within those ways. There is no common ground for those of such different ways; and when I sent you to condole with those men, I was acting stupidly. They, moreover, make man to be the fellow of the Creator, and seek their enjoyment in the formless condition of heaven and earth. They consider life to be an appendage attached, an excrescence annexed to them, and death to be a separation of the appendage and a dispersion of the contents of the excrescence. With these views, how should they know wherein death and life are to be found, or what is first and what is last? They borrow different substances, and pretend that the common form of the body is composed of them. They dismiss the thought of (its inward constituents like) the liver and gall, and (its outward constituents), the ears and eyes. Again and again they end and they begin, having no knowledge of first principles. They occupy themselves ignorantly and vaguely with what (they say) lies outside the dust and dirt (of the world), and seek their enjoyment in the business of doing nothing. How should they confusedly address themselves to the ceremonies practised by the common people, and exhibit themselves as doing so to the ears and eyes of the multitude?' It sounds a bit like reincarnation, but it's not. Not in the way that a spirit leaves one body and enters another. It's describing what I said before: the idea of merging with the earth and reforming in another way. The idea that everything is made of the same stuff and that there is no beginning to anything, because everything is caused by everything else...

Cool.

Can you see it possibly being, not literally about him being a butterfly, but a metaphor for the perceivable connection between one and the rest of existence? Perhaps. But, within existence, within Tao, everything that has happened up until this point has led to this point. Do you play pool? Think about the break. The balls start together, and are moved apart by the force of another ball. At that moment, the force/white ball and all the other balls interact, and every ball is affected by every other ball. Even if the 8 ball rolls off into the corner and stays there for the rest of the game, it got there from an interaction with all of the other balls. No ball on the table would be where it was if all those other balls hadn't been there at the break and behaved how they'd behaved in relation to all the other balls. The balls are all separate, but part of the same game. And: If all he's saying is "there's a difference between people and butterflies", why bother writing a passage about it??

Oh, no... No reincarnation in my Taoism, thanks! The ZZ is full of (seeming) contradictions. That should come as no surprise...? But it's not really a contradiction. To be different and to be the same -- this is the underlying reality. There must be a difference between me and a butterfly. But I don't know what it is. I know I'm me, because people tell me I am, and because I feel that I am. But when I dream about being a butterfly, I feel that I'm a butterfly. How do I know which is real? How do I know I'm not both? Maybe the difference isn't as clear as I thought it was. When we realize that we and the world around us are essentially the same, this is a realization of an aspect of Dao. This is the merging of one's 'reality' and 'other' -- not a literal physical merge, but a sense that one can't always differentiate. In Analects 论语, Xunzi 荀子, Liji 礼记, and others, 分 refers to "different" or "separate" or there being a difference. I haven't found an instance, in ctext or my other sources, of it meaning 缘分 http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%E6%9C%89%E5%88%86 Xunzi 人之生不能無群，群而無分則爭，爭則亂，亂則窮矣 Man cannot live without a group; to group and not separate (roles) causes conflict; conflict causes disorder, disorder causes exhaustion/poverty 故無分者，人之大害也；有分者，天下之本利也 So to not separate (roles) is of great harm; to separate is of benefit to all Not very Taoist, but that's hardly the point. Also, if he were talking of reincarnation, why talk of dreaming about being a butterfly? Why not more explicitly state that he thinks he was a butterfly in a past life? And, again, but with my translation this time: 知天樂者，其生也天行，其死也物化 "Those who know the joy of Heaven, in life they move with Heaven, and in death they merge (with all other things)" 化 originally meant death. Another form of returning to the root. It means that we merge with the earth. We fully realize the ultimate inseparability between us and the rest of existence. edit: by the way, you know.. I'm not set on it being 'merging', but am trying to defend the position as much as I can. I am pretty set on it not being about reincarnation, but if there's strong evidence to the contrary, I'll witness it...

All good answers. I especially like it when CD agrees with me.... Interesting. How do we know that he knows what it's like to be a butterfly? He would probably say, "How do you know that I don't?" Well I really meant, what does 物化 mean to you But by merging of things.. 知天樂者，其生也天行，其死也物化 "Those who know the joy of Heaven during their life, act like Heaven, and at death undergo transformation like (other) things" 化 originally meant death. Another form of returning to the root. Legge's translation here, again, literally translates it as 'transformation' without really considering what that transformation means. It means that we merge with the earth. We fully realize the ultimate inseparability between us and the rest of existence. Depends on how you look at it. in more 'scientific' terms: What are you made of? Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, calcium...same as a butterfly. If we take away the earth, you have nowhere to stand; if we take away the air, you have nothing to breathe; if we take away the sun, you have no heat, nothing to eat; if you have nothing to eat, or breathe, or stand on, there is no way for you to exist. How do you make a clear separation between you and the air that you're breathing? How does one make the separation between a tree and the earth? The atoms that make up your organic being are 100% different from the atoms that made it up this time last year. You're still TT, but you're a TT made up entirely of the stuff you've eaten. How do yo make the separation between you and the food you eat? Well, this is a very literal way of looking at it, but the more one thinks about it, the harder it becomes to make any really useful distinctions. Yes, they are. But they're also all a part of the same... 'force'...when looked at as a whole, we find that nothing in the world could exist without anything else.

Why?

Just for kicks I wanted to translate the butterfly part in my own words. Because it's brilliant. And I want to talk about wuhua (the last part). 昔者莊周夢為胡蝶，栩栩然胡蝶也，自喻適志與，不知周也。 俄然覺則蘧蘧然周也，不知周之夢為胡蝶與胡蝶之夢為周與。 周與胡蝶則必有分矣。此之謂物化。 Once Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, a happy butterfly flitting and fluttering as he pleased, not aware that he was Zhuang Zhou. When he suddenly awoke, surprised to find himself Zhuang Zhou, he wasn't sure if it was Zhuang Zhou dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming it was Zhuang Zhou. There must be a difference between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly... This is called the merging of things. Not much different from other translations, except that Watson and Legge both translate 物化 as the Transformation of Things. 物化 as a structure appears a few times in the Outer Chapters. I realize that 化 is "correctly" translated as transformation, but that doesn't work for me. What does it mean to you?

The Way, Dao... fairly unimaginative! I like the Void too, but partly because of the Wheel of Time books. And I think the void is only one aspect of the Way..

Yes

I don't recall using the word "sexy" Though it's not entirely the wrong term, perhaps... Wide hips, large breasts, a youthful countenance, etc -- these are all physical things men (not always but often) find 'sexy' based on evolutionarily beneficial factors (often based around childbearing, fertility) A large penis, lithe/strong muscles, a 'manly' growth of facial hair, etc -- all physical things that women (not always but often) find 'sexy' based on evolutionarily beneficial factors (often based around hunting, fertility) This all sounds a bit 'sexist'... because it is. These are some ways people have been able to tell (or, at least, think they can tell) that their prospective partner will be a fertile, strong, successful one. As far as tattoos, the point is in the choice that one makes..taking drugs, body modification, growing hair long/cutting it short -- all choices that people make that allow others to see something about their character. etc

This chapter uses the word 'min' 民 "citizens / the people" instead of the word 'ren' 人 "men/women / people" This means that the author is not talking about "people" as in humans, but "the people", as in one's subjects. It is advice for a ruler on how to manage the people. Keep them full and stupid and they will be happy and easy to rule. It's good advice, for ruler or citizen, but it's not originally intended as a "go back to the root" chapter. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that the Laozi is a largely philosophical text dressed up by later commentators and translators as a purely mystical/spiritual one.

Perhaps the ^^ shape that is common to both 禾- and 矢-based characters could have been confused at some point? One more thing before I give this up: a list of ^^ (禾 or 艹) -related characters in the chapter: 嗇 穫 積 舊 Not including 莫若 of course because they come up a lot So..anyway, I think it's about grain. But I don't disagree that it's not about grain. If you see what I mean.

True. But Han Feizi still seems to think that it means the person's limit, rather than the state's, no? ...and I've seen your new reply. Yes, I don't like his words, but he agrees with me, so.. I edited my previous post because I realized that the character does very much resemble 備. My homework was sloppy. However, it also very much resembles 穫， so.... who knows??

All of which are later, of course.. You're right, most of the commentary takes it as a war thing. As I've just seen from Han Feizi, he talks of grain/agriculture. Protecting the rice. Looking at the GD character we should be fairly sure that it's not 服 -- EDIT: but it does look a lot like 备...so...ah..

Yes. Good. Proving? From the same search page, just below: 蒼蒼之天，莫知其極 The blue sky, none knows its extent / limit Han Feizi also doesn't necessarily agree with you. (The following translation is mostly WK Liao's, but the blue part is improved by me, I think): 凡有國而後亡之，有身而後殃之，不可謂能有其國，能保其身。夫能有其國，必能安其社稷， 能保其身，必能終其天年，而後可謂能有其國，能保其身矣。夫能有其國，保其身者，必且體道。體道則其智深， 其智深則其會遠，其會遠，眾人莫能見其所極。唯夫能令人不見其事極，不見〔其〕事極者為保其身，有其國。 故曰：「莫知其極。莫知其極則可以有國。」 He who has the state and loses it, or has a body and brings disaster to it, cannot be said to have truly had the state, or protected the body. He who has the state must be able to keep agriculture secure; he who can protect the body must be able to live out his years as decreed by Heaven; then can he be said to truly have the state and protect the body. Indeed, who can have possession of his state and keep the safety of the body, always holds fast to Tao. If he holds fast to Tao, his wisdom is deep. If his wisdom is deep, his comprehension is far and wide. If his comprehension is far and wide, then the masses of the people cannot know its limit. It is only by realizing the true path that one can prevent people from seeing the limits of one's own affairs. Who can prevent people from seeing the limits of his own affairs, can keep the safety of his body and have possession of his state. Hence the saying: "If no one knows his limit, one can have possession of the state."

Um, is this now a topic where we can post anti-police, anti-government themed hip-hop? OC - Constables dead prez - Police State Main Source - Just a Friendly Game of Baseball Immortal Technique - Cause of Death Paris - Martial Law Blue Scholars - Oskar Barnack / Oscar Grant and, of course, NWA - Fuck tha Police

I agree that plastic surgery is fairly bizarre and that modern society is largely responsible. I agree that people shouldn't feel this horrible pressure to 'improve' themselves in this way. And I personally think that all of those women look better in the 'before' photos. That said, we are modern society, and each person has the choice of whether or not to partake in any particular custom. Some people get surgery for the same reason that they get tattoos: they really just like it. I have tattoos not because I feel my skin isn't good enough, but because I really like tattoos. And speaking of tattoos, body modification (as I've just mentioned in the thread about Tibetan Darwinism) has been around for thousands of years. Pretty much ever since humans have had the tools to do it, we've been cutting ourselves open and putting dyes and metals and ashes and all sorts of things in. Much of the time in the name of aesthetics. It's part of our genetic programming to want to 'improve' our appearance. Whether or not any particular modification is an improvement is really up to the individual.

Yes that is what I was getting at

However, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.