The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[Stosh]

I guess thats the wood thing , can we call it done?  

[Marblehead]

I guess thats the wood thing , can we call it done?  

Sure,  when the time is right I will go look for the next item of discussion.

 

I enjoyed this one.  Thanks.

[Marblehead]

I've found the next one for discussion.

 

It is Post #214 on Page 14 referencing Post #210, "The Purpose of Words".

 

I'll be back as soon as I have put something together.

[Stosh]

That's a Bear of a passage right there. 

[Marblehead]

Still working on establishing a flow for this discussion about "words".

 

The actual Lao Tzu translation used in the section is the last two lines by Lin Yutang.  It reads:

 

By many words is wit exhausted.
Rather, therefore, hold to the core.
 

Work in progress

[Stosh]

Still working on establishing a flow for this discussion about "words".

 

The actual Lao Tzu translation used in the section is the last two lines by Lin Yutang.  It reads:

 

By many words is wit exhausted.

Rather, therefore, hold to the core.

 

Work in progress

So does that mean that the last two lines belong with the rest?

OR  are they just the inappropriate , basically a wrong and misleading interjection by Lin Yutang ? who hadnt understodd what this passage said.

OR were they notes to himself about the passage. ( which  IMO would be reasonable to consider) 

If I were introducing or explaining this passage , the very same thoughts would , and in fact did, come to me in the shower. 

 

Also , it came to me, what my old English professor Chet ,had said , about processing complex passages, ,,that one should consider 8 things  .. who what where when how why structure and emotional content of it. Regardless of the ramifications and possibilities that a text might suggest, holding to the basics is really the soundest way to interpret the passage without invalidating other inuendo, etc.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

I think Lin Yutang got it right.  I also think Lao Tzu would have said, "Don't talk so much."

 

But the moon I will be pointing at will still be the concept that once the concept is understood the words can be forgotten.

 

Sure, we use words to communicate an idea.  But what good are the words after the idea has been grasped?  The words have already been symbolized in our mind by having grasped the idea.  This idea now can be expressed using many different words and phrases.

 

It's not really throwing the net away once we have caught a fish.  We keep the net so that we can tomorrow again catch a fish.  Just as we keep the words inside until we again need them.

[Stosh]

I am confused, the writing style, with the moral at the end ,does look like Lao, but Im thinking that this is a Cz translation by Merton, ch 26 .

I cant find this in my Lao translations in this form . More than that, Im thinking Mertons work is selections of stuff he read , and translated himself, ,, What is, If there is a cohesive complete Cz, the name or title to google. It looks like Lin, translated Lao, did he do a full Cz, as well? ... At terebess, Lin says himself that he has no doubt That Cz has been added to, contaminated. So frankly I dont know as basic fact, which portions should be considered to exemplify the whole philosophy ,,AND neither does he ! Whether I disagree with Lin or not, it cant fairly be said that He knew as fact what belonged to Cz, It still boils down to opinion. So Im still prepared to say those last two lines dont look like they belong. To set up an analogy, or lesson thats supposed to be explanatory, and follow it with the moral one thinks should be assigned, indicates an author doesnt have faith that the analogy speaks for itself. ,,, Not knowing otherwise,, I can easily suspect that all those addendums, are not original.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Wow Stosh!

 

Excellent questions and points to consider.

 

Yes, what I quoted above are the last two lines of Lin Yutang's translation of Chapter 5.

 

Remember though, his translation is prior to the Ma-wang-tui finds so there will be variations between his translation and someone like Henrichs.

 

And true, Lin Yutang, to the best of my knowledge, never did a complete translation of the Chuang Tzu.  His translation on Terebess is only the translation by him that I am aware of and it is only the Inner and Outer chapters less Chapter 7.  Apparently he determined that Chapter 7 was not Chuang Tzu's writing.

 

It is my understanding that only the Inner Chapters can be said to be Chuang Tzu original.  It is argued that even the Outer chapters were edited after Chuang Tzu' death.

 

But still, my original plan still holds:  To look at what Lao Tzu says about "words" and then look at Chuang Tzu's interpretation of the concept.

[Marblehead]

Let's look at this concept this way:

 

First to present the lines where Lao Tzu speaks to the concept of "words".  (I will use Henricks' translation.)

 

Then we will look at what Chuang Tzu has to say about the concept.  (I will use Watson's translation.)

 

Lao Tzu:

 

Chapter 62, Line 4.
Beautiful words can be bought and sold;

 

Chapter 78, Line 11.
Correct words seem to say the reverse [of what you expect them to say].

 

Chapter 81, Lines 1 & 2.
Sincere words are not showy;
Showy words are not sincere.

 

Chuang Tzu

 

Chapter 1.
And blindness and deafness are not confined to the body alone - the understanding has them too, as your words just now have shown.

 

Chapter 2.
Great words are clear and limpid; little words are shrill and quarrelsome.

 

Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.

 

If the Way is made clear, it is not the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice.

 

Chapter 4.
Though my words may in fact be lessons and reproaches, they belong to ancient times and not to me.

 

"I want to tell you something else I have learned. In all human relations, if the two parties are living close to each other, they may form a bond through personal trust. But if they are far apart, they must use words to communicate their loyalty, and words must be transmitted by someone. To transmit words that are either pleasing to both parties or infuriating to both parties is one of the most difficult things in the world. Where both parties are pleased, there must be some exaggeration of the good points; and where both parties are angered, there must be some exaggeration of the bad points. Anything that smacks of exaggeration is irresponsible. Where there is irresponsibility, no one will trust what is said, and when that happens, the man who is transmitting the words will be in danger. Therefore the aphorism says, `Transmit the established facts; do not transmit words of exaggeration.' If you do that, you will probably come out all right.

 

"Words are like wind and waves; actions are a matter of gain and loss. Wind and waves are easily moved; questions of gain and loss easily lead to danger. Hence anger arises from no other cause than clever words and one-sided speeches.

 

Chapter 8.
He who is web-toed in argumentation will pile up bricks, knot the plumb line, apply the curve, letting his mind wander in the realm of "hard" and "white," "likeness" and "difference," huffing and puffing away, lauding his useless words - am I wrong?

 

Chapter 12.
... lofty words make no impression on the minds of the mob. Superior words gain no hearing because vulgar words are in the majority.

 

Chapter 13.
Men of the world who value the Way all turn to books. But books are nothing more than words. Words have value; what is of value in words is meaning. Meaning has something it is pursuing, but the thing that it is pursuing cannot be put into words and handed down. The world values words and hands down books but, though the world values them, I do not think them worth valuing. What the world takes to be value is not real value.

 

Duke Huan was in his hall reading a book. The wheelwright P'ien, who was in the yard below chiseling a wheel, laid down his mallet and chisel, stepped up into the hall, and said to Duke Huan, "This book Your Grace is reading - may I venture to ask whose words are in it?"
"The words of the sages," said the duke.
"Are the sages still alive?"
"Dead long ago," said the duke.
"In that case, what you are reading there is nothing but the chaff and dregs of the men of old!"
"Since when does a wheelwright have permission to comment on the books I read?" said Duke Huan. "If you have some explanation, well and good. If not, it's your life!"
Wheelwright P'ien said, "I look at it from the point of view of my own work. When I chisel a wheel, if the blows of the mallet are too gentle, the chisel slides and won't take hold. But if they're too hard, it bites in and won't budge. Not too gentle, not too hard - you can get it in your hand and feel it in your mind. You can't put it into words, and yet there's a knack to it somehow. I can't teach it to my son, and he can't learn it from me. So I've gone along for seventy years and at my age I'm still chiseling wheels. When the men of old died, they took with them the things that couldn't be handed down. So what you are reading there must be nothing but the chaff and dregs of the men of old."

 

That should be enough to get us started.

 

I will await comment.

[Stosh]

Very, nice choices,

The beginning part of 13 suits me best .

I, having caught the rabbit long ago, dont often read the various interps ,, which still contain the eloquence of now-dead men. I dont agree sentimentwise with the wheelwright.

 

His position, that the reading was dregs, could spin nicely to my own view, that it may as well be cherry picking.The distillled wit one may drink 2500 years later.

 

He is well suited to his job, and should be left to it. The duke should recognize his own comparative delicacy though, which mirrors the weakness of booklearnin' in the face of pragmatism.

Pien was no sage either, since it was he who started the trouble, and shouldve left the duke to his own pursuit.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

What start?

I thought we were done with this.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

What start?

I thought we were done with this.

Well, maybe someone else will come along and say something.

 

BTW  There is that entire chapter, 27, Imputed Words, that I didn't even touch in the above.

[Stosh]

Simple Definition of input. : advice or opinions that help someone make a decision. : information that is put into a computer. : something (such as power or energy) that is put into a machine or system.

 

I'm assuming this is the definition which applies to the title, but frankly the passage as I read it from Watson, didnt impress me much. This other description , following ,, isnt clear either.  

 

By: 

Prof. Youru Wang

 

Chapter 27 of the book Zhuangzi provides its own characterization of Zhuangzi's three modes of discourse — dwelling words (yuyan), double-layered words (chongyan) and goblet words (zhiyan). Among the three modes, that of goblet words is most important and is concerned with the more philosophical aspect of Zhuangzi's communicative strategy. This paper will investigate the strategies of denegation, paradox and irony as three kinds of "goblet words" used by Daoist Zhuangzi. The use of denegation, paradox and irony, in the Zhuangzi, is referred to as diaogui (paradoxical speech), miuyou zhishuo (absurd speech), and the like. Indeed, denegation, paradox and irony are very good examples of Zhuangzi's goblet words and his strategy of indirect communication. Besides, I have chosen the use of denegation, paradox and irony in the Zhuangzi as a special part of my investigation of Zhuangzi's indirect communication for the following reasons: (i) the use of denegation, paradox and irony carries heavy weight in Zhuangzi's strategy of indirect communication and his philosophical style; (ii) the use of denegation, paradox and irony in the Zhuangzi has regained its attraction due to postmodern attention to the strategic link between deconstruction and negative theology, to the study of the various strategies of denegation, paradox and irony. My investigation of Zhuangzi's use of denegation, paradox and irony will address those issues that have been inquired into by contemporary philosophical discourse.

 

 

Is the subject...

 

zeit·geist

ˈtsītˌɡīst,ˈzītˌɡīst/

noun

1. the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time. 

    

    

   or are we talking dogma.. 

    

    

[Marblehead]

When we speak of Chuang Tzu I doubt any support could be given to suggest he ever talked about dogma.  Therefore, for us to speak of his dogmatism would be far off course.

 

True, Chuang Tzu never spoke directly as did Lao Tzu.  I think his goal was to expand and explain Lao Tzu.

 

I suppose it is fair to state that Chuang Tzu used indirect communications.  Fanciful tales understood by the common people.  And I suppose this supports the idea the he was more interested in concepts than in words.

[Stosh]

Im not saying what I consider this passage to be, or saying he was being dogmatic ..yet. What in this post I am saying is you have responded with a circular argument against the idea.

 

That the content of the passage cant be about dogma, since he didnt talk about it. also, we dont know for sure this outer passage was written by him either.

 

Reading the other guys intro , I dont see how this passage defines one of the three goblet word ...ummm habits. He does use irony ,possibly the other two,denegation and paradox,, but in chapter 12 , clarity and simplicity in speech is promoted. This chapter isnt simple, and I dont get at all that there are goblet words ,,specific words, which convey paradox ,irony, and denegation. It sounds like made up thing.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Im not saying what I consider this passage to be, or saying he was being dogmatic ..yet. What in this post I am saying is you have responded with a circular argument against the idea.

I have been known to do that.  A = B, therefore, B = A.

 

That the content of the passage cant be about dogma, since he didnt talk about it. also, we dont know for sure this outer passage was written by him either.

No, we don't know for sure.  Generally accepted is that the Inner Chapters are Chuang Tzu's.  The outer Chapters edited Chuang Tzu's writings.  The Miscellaneous Chapters from others.

 

I am at peace with my understandings.

 

Reading the other guys intro , I dont see how this passage defines one of the three goblet word ...ummm habits. He does use irony ,possibly the other two,denegation and paradox,, but in chapter 12 , clarity and simplicity in speech is promoted. This chapter isnt simple, and I dont get at all that there are goblet words ,,specific words, which convey paradox ,irony, and denegation. It sounds like made up thing.

I don't have much faith (actually, I have no faith) in what others say about others' writings.  When I read a person I want it to be my understanding of what the person said, not what others think I should understand.

 

Paradox was Lao Tzu's thing, not Chuang Tzu's.

 

I doubt a case could be made stating that Chuang Tzu used denegation, or denial.  Chuang Tzu spoke of "what is" and sometimes "what could be". 

[Stosh]

I have been known to do that.  A = B, therefore, B = A.

Good for you. While thats evidently true, its not logical reasoning , since the basis for the statement is the same as the conclusion. 

 

No, we don't know for sure.  Generally accepted is that the Inner Chapters are Chuang Tzu's.  The outer Chapters edited Chuang Tzu's writings.  The Miscellaneous Chapters from others.

Agreed

 

I am at peace with my understandings.

Good for you. But you have presented a argument against mine for no logical reason ,, why do you extend to me conflict based on nothing?  

 

I don't have much faith (actually, I have no faith) in what others say about others' writings.  When I read a person I want it to be my understanding of what the person said, not what others think I should understand.

Then you wouldn't have any faith in this chapter , why bring it up? If you have no faith in the content , have no desire to be in accord with myself , and have no logic to present on it?  Maybe its just early in the morning and you're grumpy , but you don't have to pass it on y'know. 

 

 

Paradox was Lao Tzu's thing, not Chuang Tzu's.

Fine , but  thats a different subject I think and we haven't dealt with this one yet. 

 

 

I doubt a case could be made stating that Chuang Tzu used denegation, or denial.  Chuang Tzu spoke of "what is" and sometimes "what could be". 

Well Mr Wang took a stab at it. but I have doubts too about that myself.

[Marblehead]

I have no idea what we are disagreeing about.  Remember we are talking about words here.  Who's words they are really doesn't matter all that much.  It are the concepts that are of value.

 

But Stosh, we oftentimes make statements that are conclusions.  Simple association makes it reasonable therefore logical.

 

The concepts within the Outer Chapters are consistently associable to the Inner Chapters therefore they are valid.

 

 

So tell me more about this disagreements we are having as I have apparently missed it totally.  Apparently I have missed some words and thusly not yet grasped the concept.

[Stosh]

It is my understanding that only the Inner Chapters can be said to be Chuang Tzu original.  It is argued that even the Outer chapters were edited after Chuang Tzu' death.

 

When we speak of Chuang Tzu I doubt any support could be given to suggest he ever talked about dogma.  Therefore, for us to speak of his dogmatism would be far off course.

 

That the content of the passage cant be about dogma, since he didnt talk about it. also, we dont know for sure this outer passage was written by him either.

 

I have been known to do that.  A = B, therefore, B = A.

 

 The concepts within the Outer Chapters are consistently associable to the Inner Chapters therefore they are valid.

 

I am at peace with my understandings.

 

Your'e still making a circular argument to discount only one of several possibilities and youre saying you dont give a shit that your argument isnt logical , and bypassing the multiple questions I put out to you. 

 

You cant make the argument the chapter is consistent with the rest, if the reason you say the chapter has to be consistent with the rest is that the rest are consistent with it. 

 

Less precise but maybe clearer, Youre disputing my point rather than supplying a logical alternative and blowing past the questions I do have for you. 

[Marblehead]

Youre disputing my point rather than supplying a logical alternative and blowing past the questions I do have for you. 

So what, please, is your point and what were the questions?

[Stosh]

I'm assuming this is the definition which applies to the title, but frankly the passage as I read it from Watson, didnt impress me much. This other description , following ,, isnt clear either.  

 

 

 

 

Is the subject...

 

zeit·geist

 

1. or are we talking dogma.. 

    

    I dont see how this passage defines one of the three goblet word ...ummm habits. 

    

   This chapter isnt simple, and I dont get at all that there are goblet words ,,specific words, which convey paradox ,irony, and denegation

    

    

    

    

   But nevermind , Im not trying to trap you or trip you up , weve been through this scenario before ,, Ill just skip it and you can too. 

   Nevermind, movin on. 

    

Edited March 8, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay, I'll nevermind.  But first let me say this.

 

Lin Yutang did not translate either Chapter 12 or 27 as he determined that they were no from Chuang Tzu himself but from others.

 

Anyhow. some times we don't understand each other.  I had that same problem with all three of my wifes.

 

So on to greener pastures (or more misunderstandings).

[Stosh]

Im neverminding as well , but Yes ,they were other people,,,  so one has to look to those chapters to decide if they are  "consistently associable" with the philosophy of the original author.

You cant associate them with the original author , as a logical argument , to prove they are the same persons philosophy.

As best as you, I ,Lin ,,,all know, they probably werent the same guy and so they may not be expressing the same ideas.

You have to look at the content and ignore the context.  

I thought that was the object of the discussion , to look at the content and discuss what it meant. 

[Marblehead]

Yes, and you did notice that I stopped in the Outer Chapters and did not post anything from the Miscellaneous Chapters.

 

Actually, for me, how what is in the Chuang Tzu applies to today's life is what is of importance.  How what is said could be lessons for us.