Chapter 1, Section 2 Concepts

[Stosh]

If you say that- that which my preferences are ,dictates.

Then you agree its illusion but won't admit it.

If that's a thing that Chinamen share

, I am no chinaman.

[ChiDragon]

Hehe, of course, I may be seeing more then there is here.

 

Yes, you are. You will be appreciated if you try to stay within the philosophical scope of the thread. It would be less confusion to the issue by keeping any idea about TCM or martial arts practice out.

Edited August 15, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Hehe, of course, I may be seeing more then there is here.

That's okay. Oftentimes we find the answers to our questions in the wierdest places.

[Marblehead]

 

Yes, all Chinamen knew that. Unless they are not Chinamen......

Hehehe. Thanks for pointing out that I am not a Chinaman. Reminds me of a discussion a while back. Sad, that one.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. Thanks for pointing out that I am not a Chinaman. Reminds me of a discussion a while back. Sad, that one.

 

Well, If I can make you better, I will revise my statement to read:

Yes, most Chinamen knew that. Unless they are not on the "most" list......

[Uroboros]

What is a chinaman, anyways?

 

Its off topic, I know. The term is just being thrown around now and Its very vague.

 

Ancestry wise? Well, which tribe/ region is a "chinaman"?

 

Lots O different ones.

 

Culturally? Well, we are talking about and feel a connection with parts of that culture.

 

So maybe we are, who do not fit ancestry wise, are like the strange step children.

 

Peace.

[Uroboros]

That's okay. Oftentimes we find the answers to our questions in the wierdest places.

 

Its true. I often times have found answers in weird places...

 

I wonder what the question is?! hahah

[Stosh]

That's the ticket! Discuss this work but constrain yourself to the most mundane and literal translations. Pretend that the author isn't using symbols. When he talks about a tree he is really dicussing trees!

Just understand that these types of trees have no significance whatsoever, because one wouldn't want to possibly imply TCM because ironically, he doesn't mention the medicinal properties of things.

If he mentions a peng in one section and then replaces it with an albino in another passage it really is an albino because he used the chinese symbols for an albino or a peng or a human master of some type. And then there's the chi which is just wind and although all chinese agree with that , some persist in associating the term with other things..as if mythological beasts actually are constrained by physical properties like lift to drag ratios. The proper thing to do is box the figurative writing ino facts that can be proven like a li is a standard unit of measure which it may be now but wasn't always! So I shouldn't get confused and misapply associations because I don't speak chinese. What however Is correct is that someone who speaks chinese should make the error and say that I wasn't correct.

If that's the general flow of things ,there is little I need to hear on the subject, and neither is there anything left to appreciate or consider by anyone else.

[Uroboros]

Hmm...Stosh, when I read these things, like mythology and other writings that use words/ symbolical representations of "things"..

I feel that there very well could be deeper meaning.

 

My previous ramblings point to my current wiggly line of thinking on that. hah.

 

In Myth, there are the Archetypes that represent deeper, spiritual/ mental principles at work/ rest.

 

Could there be such things in the Chuang Tzu?

 

Maybe.

 

Peace.

[ChiDragon]

So I shouldn't get confused and misapply associations because I don't speak chinese. What however Is correct is that someone who speaks chinese should make the error and say that I wasn't correct.

 

No, sorry you took it that way. FYI There are lots of Chinese are not familiar with classic and could have the worse interpretation that no one has ever heard of.

[Stosh]

Hmm...Stosh, when I read these things, like mythology and other writings that use words/ symbolical representations of "things"..I feel that there very well could be deeper meaning. My previous ramblings point to my current wiggly line of thinking on that. hah. In Myth, there are the Archetypes that represent deeper, spiritual/ mental principles at work/ rest. Could there be such things in the Chuang Tzu? Maybe. Peace.

I am certain there are Urob . But if the ones who can best bring it forth are stuck in a chinese grammar lesson, ... I don't see any way to coax it out correctly ..I need a little distance for perspective.

[Stosh]

No, sorry you took it that way. FYI There are lots of Chinese are not familiar with classic and could have the worse interpretation that no one has ever heard of.

I leave the stage to you Till my temper turns mild good hunting Cd.

[Uroboros]

I am certain there are Urob . But if the ones who can best bring it forth are stuck in a chinese grammar lesson, ... I don't see any way to coax it out correctly ..I need a little distance for perspective.

 

Well, I hope you feel some calm and tranquility with some delicious food, soon.

 

There are plenty of people who can read chinese/ understand the grammar on here. Maybe we can persuade some to come talk and help us see if there are some other layers to it!

 

Cookies work...We need cookies.

 

Take care of your self, Stosh.

 

Peace.

[dawei]

Why assume the dove was lazy?

 

The dove is not lazy. It is limited by its [smaller] perspective. I may not understand the soaring ability of Peng, but Peng has lost the ability which they possess too.

[dawei]

What kind of birds he was used for example is immaterial.

 

The kinds of birds he uses is material... a dove does what a dove can do. Its size is important as it comes with the understanding of a dove. He doesn't pretend that a dove is large and can fly like Peng.

 

There is an appropriateness in the kind, use, function, etc.

[rene]

The dove is not lazy. It is limited by its [smaller] perspective. I may not understand the soaring ability of Peng, but Peng has lost the ability which they possess too.

 

Your words ring of Laozi. Considering from only one perspective: choosing small over large, or large over small; manifestations over essence, or essence over manifestations gives only one-half of the all...

 

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. ~ ddj1

 

***

In the Mushroom in the Morning story... Zz's actors take the lower position, that of manifest, and chide the higher position, or essence. This might be a poke at the spiritually highfalutin of the day, or it might be the first introduction of actors/theme that will appear throughout. My guess is the later, but since I've not read Zz in a long time and remember little of it, time will have to tell. (-:

[Uroboros]

Your words ring of Laozi. Considering from only one perspective: choosing small over large, or large over small; manifestations over essence, or essence over manifestations gives only one-half of the all...

 

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. ~ ddj1

 

***

In the Mushroom in the Morning story... Zz's actors take the lower position, that of manifest, and chide the higher position, or essence. This might be a poke at the spiritually highfalutin of the day, or it might be the first introduction of actors/theme that will appear throughout. My guess is the later, but since I've not read Zz in a long time and remember little of it, time will have to tell. (-:

 

Hehe, choosing one over the other, this over that, him over her, etc...is a big pitfall.

 

I have seen plenty of people limit themselves and their experience of life doing that.

 

I know I have done it. I love choosing both...Maybe is a great answer, to me. haha.

 

In my head, I think maybe more often then yes or no. HAHAH....

 

My mind cant make up its mind so I pay it no mind. HAH

[rene]

Hehe, choosing one over the other, this over that, him over her, etc...is a big pitfall.

 

I think it's okay to prefer this over that; I'd rather have happy than sad, but maybe when we cling so hard to our choice that we cant also see from the other perspective... is when the pitfall comes. But that's just my idea, and we're going off-topic again. Sorry, MH.

[ChiDragon]

The kinds of birds he uses is material... a dove does what a dove can do. Its size is important as it comes with the understanding of a dove. He doesn't pretend that a dove is large and can fly like Peng.

 

There is an appropriateness in the kind, use, function, etc.

 

ZZ was using the size of the birds to distinguish the difference between big and small. What kind of birds he was used for example is immaterial.

 

Please read carefully. Didn't I say the same thing to begin with....??? I was talking to Stosh about the kind of birds referring to the dove and quail as in comparison with Peng.

Edited August 16, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Uroboros]

I think it's okay to prefer this over that; I'd rather have happy than sad, but maybe when we cling so hard to our choice that we cant also see from the other perspective... is when the pitfall comes. But that's just my idea, and we're going off-topic again. Sorry, MH.

 

Oh yes, preferences are helpful!

 

I agree, its the clinging, the attachment to one single thing that seems to create loads of problems.

 

It does for me, atleast. haha.

 

Some things are better to hold onto, though. Some things feel "right" on a deep level where I have to do it.

 

Few things are like that, though.

 

We are off topic?!

 

Oh, we are...sort of...kinda...maybe.

 

Peace.

[rene]

Uroboros - on second thought, you are right - and this is not off-topic at all. Part of Marblehead's "Concepts" project was to also (unlike this exercise 2 yrs ago) include how we use the concepts in our daily life. Last time - it was more an exploration of the Chapters themselves, with all of the "this means this in Chinese" debates, which were fine back then.

 

But this time, I think, he's hoping to also explore the applications of the concepts - in today's world - which we just kinda did.

 

Of course, if I am mistaken about his idea for this project - Marblehead can correct me and I welcome him to do so. (-:

[Marblehead]

The dove is not lazy. It is limited by its [smaller] perspective. I may not understand the soaring ability of Peng, but Peng has lost the ability which they possess too.

This is so freakin' important I decided to repeat it.

[Marblehead]

But that's just my idea, and we're going off-topic again. Sorry, MH.

Not really. Y'all are still with the root concept. Its roots truely do go very deep indeed.

[Marblehead]

Please read carefully. Didn't say the same thing to begin with. I was talking to Stosh about the kind of birds referring to the dove and quail as in comparison with Peng.

Yeah, but you know we are going to ping you on your word choices when you express your understandings. Hehehe. Don't take it as meanness, its just in fun, in the most part.

[Marblehead]

Uroboros - on second thought, you are right - and this is not off-topic at all. Part of Marblehead's "Concepts" project was to also (unlike this exercise 2 yrs ago) include how we use the concepts in our daily life. Last time - it was more an exploration of the Chapters themselves, with all of the "this means this in Chinese" debates, which were fine back then.

 

But this time, I think, he's hoping to also explore the applications of the concepts - in today's world - which we just kinda did.

That is correct just as stated above.