dust

Haha! Well, there are some wise Chinese ladies out there Yeah, I probably should read Hanfeizi. I did scan the Hanfeizi bits in that article but wasn't keen on translating them in full... a translation within an interpretation of an article aiding the study of a text...

Tehe, yes, it was temporary. I think the main issue, though, is the disregard the new White House seems to have for the environment. That Mother Jones article makes some decent points about the EPA. It might appear to be doing nothing, to some, but without environmental regulations/agencies ensuring certain businesses/governments adhered to certain targets/rules, the world would be in an even shittier state than it is right now. I agree with everything you said. What I see, though, is that though someone like Obama might not have prevented deforestation (I don't know..), it seems like Trump is essentially saying "Fuck nature."

I think I'm looking at them all as verbs, now. To be loving, to exercise restraint, and to be yielding. They can all be both nouns and verbs, even. Tomato tomato. Although the above explanation uses the character rang 讓 so that each virtue has its own character (慈, 俭, 讓), if Laozi had used just this one character instead of 不敢为天下先 it might have been even less clear what he meant. My knowledge of ancient Chinese is basically nothing, so any deeper understanding is beyond me... all out of ideas

Ohh K then... Here's the meat, with a bit of formatting (Chinese academics do love their unbroken walls of text) The '3 treasures' are to say three treasured rules or virtues that, if they can be held to, can keep society harmonious. The virtue of ci is expansive love, of the kind that turns a soft woman into a strong mother; a ruler with this kind of love will protect his people. Rather, it is not just to protect the people, but to absolutely maintain their well-being. The virtue of jian is expansive frugality; not just being frugal, but exercising great restraint. Not just being thrifty with goods to keep the people from need, but to enable them to live and work and have children in peace, so that the land is expansive and the population great. Extravagance often leads to disaster (see DDJ ch.29). To 'not dare to be the first under heaven' might be rephrased as the virtue of rang (to allow/concede/yield/offer). With this virtue of rang a leader puts others before himself, in all things humble and yielding, that the people will love and support him, respect him as the foremost leader. This is explained in (the previous) chapter 66, where the ruler is taught that the oceans govern the valleys by being lower than them. Without the virtue of ci, there is bravery with no love; without the virtue of jian there is only a wide territory (and no people); without the virtue of rang there is only putting oneself first, which is a dead end. It quotes Hanfeizi a lot, and goes on at some length about ideas which I think it explains well enough to begin with. So I've cut a lot out but that's the generalness of it.

I was about to click 'thank you' for this but I was curious about the deforestation part. I'm pro-GMO, or at least not anti, and I don't particularly care about cannabis, but I'm certainly against deforestation... so I clicked on the link, but it doesn't provide any evidence of any modern politician being a major advocate for cutting down forest... Is there evidence? Obviously deforestation continues to happen, and most politicians don't make it part of their rhetoric any more (not like in the '90s) but do we blame politicians for that or do we blame ourselves for the stupid lifestyles we lead and for supporting the businesses/industries that continue to cut down trees? You misrepresent the facts. The EPA and USDA among others were forbidden to continue with business as usual -- it is part of their raison d'etre to provide the public with information, including new reports/analyses etc. For example, Sharon Drumm, the chief of staff for Agricultural Research Service, wrote in a department-wide email: “Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents.. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content"

That's an excellent explanation. Perhaps you would like to translate the major points (maybe not the whole thing -- it's a bit long-winded!) for anyone who doesn't read Chinese? If not I am happy to do it later today

It probably does mean that, but maybe not just that. Maybe we should ask what we think 'humility' means. And then we could figure out if it's the same as "Not daring...etc"

Also found in the art/insignia of various European cultures, including Celtic/La Tene and ancient Rome: The Sun's patterns would be a logical explanation for such widespread use.

Without accusing anyone of "fascism", I will say that, from a distance, it appears that some of these points are either already quite true of the USA or are becoming more apparent. Though this is only true of a portion of the population, with other factions behaving quite differently. It should be obvious that many of these points are true in nations like "Communist" China. With Mao at the helm China was never on a path to true communism anyway, but as its economy has become unashamedly capitalist in nature and it has continued on a path of nationalism, militarism, poor human rights, controlled media, rampant corruption, control of religion, etc, not to mention the way the economy is run and apparently teetering on the edge of genocide in Tibet, it has become very close to a fascist state (essentially it is a fascist state and we just won't call it that for some reason). Though I'm optimistic that things continue to improve, however slowly. edit: I mention China as an example of a modern nation that is much closer to fascism than America, so we can compare and see just how close/far the USA is from this state. The USA certainly isn't fascist and some of the points above are not true ("smear campaigns" are a sign of democracy in action, not fascism! -- can you think of an election in which candidates were not smeared? -- and I do not believe that either side manipulated the last election in any way that could be compared to Hitler) but it would certainly behoove many Americans to take a step back and listen to themselves sometimes.

Like I said, there was at least one way of saying 'humility' or 'modesty' in a single character, as was done with the other 2 -- so it seems pretty certain that there was a particular reason that the author did not do this. That means, to me, that the meaning he intended was not simply 'humility'. It's something more specific than that. "Not daring to be first under heaven", or however one translates it, seems to carry a lot of meaning. Though I'm not sure we really understand what all that meaning is.

I know you have, which in a way makes it worse. I'm more used to people disagreeing with me

Certainly I did not get the impression that your intended subject was the control of others, and I doubt anyone else did...? Tthough I guess it is easy for the discussion to head that way at some point. I am sorry that you've had to read so much of my balancing of views in particular. But -- obviously! -- I feel quite strongly about the subject.. So, regarding this "focus and force". You would be suggesting, with the OP championing specialism, that it would be preferable for one's focus and force to be concentrated on areas directly connected to one's daily life -- and therefore less focus/force on researching the news if that is not one's career or primary enjoyment in life? I'd like to agree on that -- arguing about Trump doesn't do anything to make my life better, I don't think -- but at the same time, we would be in trouble if only a few specialists in each nation were interested in the news, right? Our society requires us to remain involved on a conversational level, otherwise those in charge really will be able to simply "brainwash" us...

Well if you read about that button, you'll see that it was an attempt to reset relations...but that it was a grand failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset Not sure why this is any different than Trump's press for better relations with Russia -- except that Trump actually seems to believe Putin is a good guy, whereas Obama et al have long been aware that he is not. Anyway, as long as we're looking at photos... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/17/the-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/?utm_term=.75cee6e795dc (article from 2014) "It's been over five years since the United States and Russia vowed to "reset" their relationship. In that time, the two countries have had to grapple with disagreements over Syria, Iran and Libya, as well as Russia's welcome to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden and the U.S. condemnation of a Russian-supported referendum in Crimea. On Monday, the United States imposed sanctions on some of the highest ranking officials in the Russian government. Let's just say it: The reset is dead." And the subsequent photoshow begins with the one of Clinton and Lavrov that you showed in your own post. I do believe this should permanently quell any suggestions that "the left" has suddenly and out of the blue decided that it doesn't like Russia. I also think it's bizarre to claim that none of this has anything to do with the Cold War. Of course there is sentiment left over from those decades. Relations with Russia and the West have been strained for... over a century? More? I won't even set foot near the idea that people (left or right) are gunning for WW3. Imagine how you'd take it if I suggested Trump wanted WW3. I don't like Clinton or Trump and I find the notion that either of them actually want WW3 quite insulting.

Well, without arguing over the definitions of "lie", we can forget about Sessions. Others lied. Others certainly had more than a conversation with Russian officials and/or businessmen. I was only proving to Aetherous that Trump and a number of his friends most certainly have had contact with various Russians -- to, it seems to me, a greater extent than Clinton. And I don't think McCaskill or Pelosi are relevant. That would be another topic -- "Democrats who lie about things including their contact with Russian politicians", or something.. But anyway... if Obama did not order the wiretap, this whole thread is meaningless, no? Not rhetoric. Actual anti-Russian sentiment. Certainly it's not new. The Cold War didn't see the end of mistrust between Russia and the West. And Putin has very much secured that mistrust. As far as I know Trump is the first American figurehead in a long time to heap such praises on Russia or one of its leaders.

One or two of the links I posted at the end of my comment might throw some light on that for you. e.g. Paul Manafort. Aside from that.. we know that Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions have lied about communication with Russian officials and that Rex Tillerson and Wilbur Ross have close ties to men in the Kremlin. The FBI is still investigating Roger Stone, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn regarding their contact with Russian officials during the campaign. If half a dozen of the men he chose to form his inner circle aren't enough... I'm assuming you don't mean in general... because yes, there has been discussion of Russia for a long time! As far as Trump himself is concerned: “And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Spoken by his son, Don junior, some years ago (I lost the article, sure you can find it if you want) In 2007, Trump praised Putin for “rebuilding Russia.” In 2008, he said, “He does his work well. Much better than our Bush.” Trump denies that Putin has assassinated his opponents, “In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that.” But if he did see it: “At least he’s a leader.” “I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an A.” FBI investigation still ongoing. There is lots to look into, it would appear.

The notion that there are many different types of people and that we thrive on diversity is certainly true. We are diverse as individuals, thriving during our evolution on being capable of many things, and this has led to a great diversity between us also. And so in groups, when we each come to terms with our individual strengths, and start to specialize, we can thrive even more. But when taken to a certain point, when people start to specialize at the expense of certain (previously) basic human activity, we get civilization. And I'd argue that, contrary to appearance, modern civilization isn't a picture of a thriving humanity. When humans each made their own tools, ran through the forests and plains hunting and gathering their own food, gathered their own wood and built their own fires, defended their own homes, created their own languages, etc, life was really fucking difficult. But this was also the time that humans evolved into the super-intelligent and complex creatures that exist today. When humans started splitting into professions -- farming, military, politics, masonry, carpentry, king, etc -- and then within those professions even more specialized roles -- apple picker, infantry, lawmaker, wall builder, chair maker, etc -- we, as Adam Smith notes, started to lose many of the qualities that make a great human what it is. There's such a thing as too much specialism. At this point in time, most human societies are far too focused on individual specialization, even more than in the past. I bet that you only need to take a look around at yourself, family, friends, colleagues, etc, to see this, and the harmful effects of overspecialization. We all know people (or are people) who sit on a chair 8-12 hours per day, hunched over the keyboard, typing some report or code or essay, maybe choosing to go out for an hour at the end of the day to "do exercise" (which consists of some half-assed squats and a bench press), then drinking till midnight and passing out in front of Game of Thrones or American Idol. Or a health professional, a nurse for example, who works 16-hour shifts, eating junk from the machine at the end of the ward, seeing the family for an hour in the morning...

The thing that bothers me about many topics here is the consistent focus of hatred on Obama and Clinton and refusal to admit that Trump has ever done anything wrong. We know that Clinton has ties to Russia, and we know that Trump has ties to Russia. Trump's a lot closer to Putin than Clinton is, though. If a potential US president and those around him are suspected of having ties to Russia, suspected of being influenced by this (often hostile) foreign agent, there is good reason to collect information. The problem I see is that Obama didn't do the same with Clinton. But perhaps there was more worry about the fact that Trump has clearly been parroting Kremlin propaganda for a long time and has various guys in his circle with ties to the Kremlin itself (not just Russian technology companies). http://observer.com/2016/08/the-desire-to-please-dictators-why-trumps-crimea-gaffe-matters/ http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/paul-manafort-ukraine-104263 (Trump's campaign chairman) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=1

My very basic knowledge of it has led me to believe that Chinese Medicine itself is a generalized approach. Like a general practitioner in Western medicine, one must gain and maintain a broad understanding of various (broad and detailed) principles involved, and be able not just to work directly with the body and qi, but also advise on physical activity, diet, lifestyle, etc? I think it's a great approach. Good medicine, preventative and corrective, is a cornerstone of a happy society. And we can't all be doctors or acupuncturists. But if every medical professional specialized in a certain area, and generalists in medicine diminished, we'd be in trouble. And a medical professional, with all the knowledge he must have, can still pursue other things as a part of his varied collection of abilities. Maybe my first post came on too strong. I'm not against specialization in any form, only extreme specialization at the expense of other things. A lot of people spend their life pursuing one career, one job, one very specific task, trying to be the very best and forgetting that there is so much else to experience. And as Adam Smith said, this usually leads to a diminished capacity for intellectual, social, and physical wellbeing.

Sorry to apparently disregard your question ("What is your one thing?") but the only honest answer I can give is "Please not just one thing!" What is your one thing? And could you really see yourself doing only that? And how would that be beneficial to society?

Surprisingly (sarcasm), I disagree. As politely as possible. Great topic though. We, humans, are the great generalists. Of all the animals, we are capable of the widest range of action and thought. We can thrive in a wide range of habitats, perform a wide range of physical feats (walk, run, swim, climb, jump, lift, throw, make, manipulate various objects/tools in precise and intricate ways, etc), understand a wide range of subjects (languages, mathematics, sciences, aesthetics, etc). We have as a species accomplished great things by specializing, but we have also sacrificed a great many things. We accomplish many great things as specialists, but as individual specialists we rob ourselves of the beauty of being human. Of course, we cannot do everything. There is too much shared knowledge, there are too many physical pursuits. And we each have our strengths -- certainly we should not all aim to be the same (that would be the most terrible). But we can each find our unique 'schema', our own collection of varied abilities. I strongly believe specialism destroys. It destroys us as individuals and as a society. The more we as individuals specialize, the worse things get. edit: A quote from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations: "In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." — Book V, Chapter I, Part III

I did a little post with a very basic analysis of word/character frequency a year or two back... and most people seemed to think it was pretty useless Also, this guy seems to have done it with an English translation, which (as you'll see if you look at my analysis) actually ends up with a completely different word count. I'd pay more attention to the Chinese one.

I'm quite selective about what I merge with.

Yeah, I quite like gentle/gentleness. Skimming Legge's translation (usually makes an appearance as it's alongside the Chinese on the English version of ctext.org) I noticed that he used 'gentleness' and 'bold'. Though I'm not as convinced by his 'economy' and 'liberal' for the 2nd treasure.

jiǎn 儉 Translations include temperate, be cautious about, keep watch over, thrifty, frugal, economical, poor, bad harvest I looked at ci all by itself in that last post but should also have looked at it in the context of the chapter, particularly with reference to its partner (yong 勇 brave, fierce -- a pairing there could be 'tender' and 'fierce' but I'm not sure others will like that). The partner of jian in this chapter is guang 廣 which can translate as wide, extensive. I've always thought the pairing of 'frugal' and 'wide' is odd. There's also no particular reason to assume that Laozi is referring to money or one's ability to save it. It's fine to be thrifty but I've always thought it odd that this would be one of three treasures. The makeup of the character 儉 is person 人 and all 僉, which is taken now to mean "person (conserving) all", but I think the original pictogram could just as easily be illustrating a person standing separate from the crowd, watching over, "a man apart" as it were. This would fit with the older translation "keep watch over", perhaps. I might call jian 'cautious', a simple combination of the notions of economic caution and caution for/around other people. guang could then be something like 'adventurous', I suppose, though that's much more specific than the Chinese.

Thanks. I do miss discussing this stuff. Not sure where my fire went. From an almost-purely linguistic standpoint..(and remember I'm rusty as well as dusty) ci 慈 Translations include love, show kindness to, give presents to one's parents 其次为慈母。——《礼记·内则》 慈者, 父母之高行也。——《管子·形势解》 It seems to have been used a lot in ancient texts in conjunction with parents & filial piety, but especially the mother. In Buddhist texts, Great Compassion (Mahakaruna) is translated as dabeixin 大悲心 (lit. great sad heart), not dacixin 大慈心, but ci does seem to be associated with Bodhisattvas, i.e. 'giving happiness' to others. To me, this makes sense: with empathy at the core, compassion and mercy hold an element of sorrow (as the great many people are inevitably sad/suffering, especially according to Buddhists...), so 悲 bei works (at least in Buddhism). In our Daoist text, I don't see that 慈 ci really fits with all that. Compassion might not be the best word. Especially when we consider its association with the parents/filial piety. From an etymological view, the character began as a pictogram of silk and a heart, apparently illustrating: 心肠软如丝，疼惜生命，不杀生，不作恶 heart soft like silk, tender love of life, no killing, no evildoing Maybe "love" or "kindness" would be better. Then again, maybe all of these words could fit (love, compassion, kindness).