Idea-traps

[Taoist Texts]

Anyway.. there are enough laowai who believe in an afterlife, in an eternal soul, and enough Chinese who don't, that we don't need to assume that all non-Chinese are reading it wrong simply because none of them believe in eternal existence.

Did ZZ believe in afterlife?

[dust]

Don't worry, I misunderstood what you wrote.

[Marblehead]

 

But people need something "more"... people need to have something that they can't logically explain. As if existence itself wasn't enough.

Hehehe.  I keep forgetting about that.

 

Afterall, more is better.

[Geof Nanto]

Some further thoughts on Idea-Traps and the Fishnet Allegory…….

 

One of the biggest potential idea-traps is the powerful thought formations that the wisest people communicate to us. Their teachings are like a double edged sword – potentially both helpful and harmful.  “The raft is not the shore.”

 

“Thoughts are natural events that you do not possess, and whose whole meaning you only imperfectly recognise. Thoughts grow in me like a forest, populated by many different animals.”

 

If thoughts were like rabbits……

 

Beyond words and ideas, no rabbits!

The open ended evocativeness of the best poetry; like rabbits living free in the wilderness.

The allegories of the Zhuangzi in its original archaic Chinese; like healthy rabbits free ranging within a large enclosed field.

Translations into English; like rabbits caught in a snare – they are still alive but their freedom is restricted by whatever length of the snare wire the translator has allowed.

And explicit commentary on the Zhuangzi;  like killed, skinned and cooked rabbits served up on a dish. Skilled chefs can create awesome meals – but obviously tastes vary.

 

Zen -  If you meet a rabbit on the road, kill it and discard it; look beyond form and emptiness.  

 

Zhuang Zhou – If you meet a rabbit whilst roaming the countryside, eat it for nourishment if hungry; when satisfied, forget rabbits.

 

Me  – rabbits and fish taste good, but not as good as they used to;  almost satisfied????  

 

(The choice to move beyond words and ideas is more difficult than ever now we've made the fishnet into the world-wide-web.    www:  another double-edged sword -  great source of knowledge; great potential trap for Daoist practitioners.)  

Edited April 5, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

Yep, you had some extended thoughts.

[Stosh]

Interesting conversation.

Reading the snare.. thing, it just looks totally different from what yall are saying,

The ends justfy, the means ,,, they validate the hunter

A person who has forgotten the snare, has already gotten the rabbit.

So he is justified and validated.

Wanting to hear from they guy who has done it, made his choices and lived with them , makes sense vs asking someone who is only theorizing... they are in no position to give advice nor judge.

 

This is in direct contradiction to saying you can experience the world from inside the house. Ones living is the thing that validates, and presumably ,one cant become one with dao by means of intellectual gymnastics, untested in the real world for validity. Immersion in the dao is immersion in the real world.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

This is in direct contradiction to saying you can experience the world from inside the house. Ones living is the thing that validates, and presumably ,one cant become one with dao by means of intellectual gymnastics, untested in the real world for validity. Immersion in the dao is immersion in the real world.

 

I definitely agree with this. 

 

 

Interesting conversation.

Reading the snare.. thing, it just looks totally different from what yall are saying,

The ends justfy, the means ,,, they validate the hunter

A person who has forgotten the snare, has already gotten the rabbit.

So he is justified and validated.

Wanting to hear from they guy who has done it, made his choices and lived with them , makes sense vs asking someone who is only theorizing... they are in no position to give advice nor judge.

 

I'm not entirely clear on your meaning here. Perhaps you could explain a little more.

 

I like it that you're seeing the rabbit and fish as real living animals. I could see this image in the allegory but didn't mention it because it was outside the focus of the thread. Indigenous hunters were big on eating the qi of the animals they hunted and killed. They weren't solely after dead meat - they wanted to consume and be nourished by the ineffable essence of spirit. So the allegory for me has an image of living energy being trapped first in the animals and then in the words. And it's the trapped qi in both the Daoist wants for nourishment. 

[Stosh]

I definitely agree with this. 

 

 

 

I'm not entirely clear on your meaning here. Perhaps you could explain a little more.

 

I like it that you're seeing the rabbit and fish as real living animals. I could see this image in the allegory but didn't mention it because it was outside the focus of the thread. Indigenous hunters were big on eating the qi of the animals they hunted and killed. They weren't solely after dead meat - they wanted to consume and be nourished by the ineffable essence of spirit. So the allegory for me has an image of living energy being trapped first in the animals and then in the words. And it's the trapped qi in both the Daoist wants for nourishment. 

The ends justfy, the means ,,,  which means   they validate the hunter and his methods 

This part I figure youd be familiar with,  its a common argument.

 

A person that who has forgotten the snare, must have already gotten the rabbit.

This is the logical leap its just turning the view in reverse, like,,ummm , black is not white, so ,white is not black 

 

So he is justified and validated. 

This just ties the second part back to the first in reverse fashion again.

 

Wanting to hear from they guy who has done it, made his choices and lived with them , makes sense vs asking someone who is only theorizing... they are in no position to give advice nor judge.

Ummm, 

I want a guy who has painted houses, to paint my house. Why should I hire the guy who hasnt done it? Would you want the inexperienced surgeon ? Until youve gone and done something you dont really know the pitfalls and drawbacks.

 

 

Does that help explain me better ? Speliing it out makes it look complicated but in normal everyday speech , maybe with two political candidates standing next to one another on the podium, ,, it would be clearer. Its like someone telling me I dont know what I am talking about. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Stosh

[Spotless]

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?

You may want to rethink what you have written here, in the following quote the opposite is true:

 

"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."

 

I am quite certain you inserted to the quote regarding the meaning of the Chinese "if two 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".

 

I have never encountered a real conversation in which a very clear watch was not on the lookout for clarity of definitions. In the Socratic dialogs this problem of assumption regarding words is brought into full light.

 

Most conversations are not conversations - even the "best" of them. Few people even scratch the surface of real conversation because they cannot get past themselves or they cannot hold a thought line past an inch.

 

The conversation that does not "worry about definitions" is one that tends to be a circle jerk of the like minded. One does not get to essence, one plays a tune that everyone is already in resonance with. This is not displeasing and it is not necessarily without value but it is generally wholly unconscious, reactive and thin.

 

On the other hand, it may be that what you are trying to translate for us is the notion that sometimes we must listen and see the thread behind the words, not stop and examine each tidbit but absorb the general collective elements and abiding theme. I have no arguement with this be put it seemed you presented a sort of distaste for the inquiring clarifying non assumptive - this seemed to be the case because you then brought that same voice to a seeming distaste for our remoteness from catching our food and a remoteness from the "simple life".

 

You also extrapolate the snare and hare discussion to include the person of modern day who purchases his meat and somehow make the two entirely different ideas comingle. The person today snares his catch with money - his snare is the work he received his money from. Putting a net in the ground is work to receive a catch. The subject of the remoteness from actual ground work is an in tiredly different subject. And perhaps the worker that paid for his catch halled cow dung all day - would that make the life of the trapper seem somehow trite by comparison.

 

Why vilify the statesman or the cashier because they buy their food? This is entirely different - it is playing a tune to like minded - but I am not of like mind - it is simply a diversion from tapes in your head that came out in the post.

 

What would you say was the singular essence of your post?

 

Watson understands that as the essence hit its mark and understanding has taken place the book (words) can be discarded and he would like to speak to the person who has understood something. He is not demeaning the value of words, he is esteeming the value of one who has understood something.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Spotless

[dust]

edit: a little harsh. I'll try again.
 
You seem to have (I think, somewhat deliberately) misrepresented everything I said.

 

"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."

I have never encountered a real conversation in which a very clear watch was not on the lookout for clarity of definitions. In the Socratic dialogs this problem of assumption regarding words is brought into full light.

The conversation that does not "worry about definitions" is one that tends to be a circle jerk of the like minded. One does not get to essence, one plays a tune that everyone is already in resonance with. This is not displeasing and it is not necessarily without value but it is generally wholly unconscious, reactive and thin.

On the other hand, it may be that what you are trying to translate for us the notion that sometimes we must listen and see the thread behind the words, not stop and examine each tidbit but absorb the general collective elements and abiding theme. I have no arguement with this be put it seemed you presented a sort of distaste for the inquiring clarifying non assumptive - this seemed to be the case because you then brought that same voice to a seeming distaste for our remoteness from catching our food and a remoteness from the "simple life".

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.

 

 

 

You also extrapolate the snare and hare discussion to include the person of modern day who purchases his meat and somehow make the two entirely different ideas comingle. The person today snares his catch with money - his snare is the work he received his money from. Putting a net in the ground is work to receive a catch. The subject of the remoteness from actual ground work is an in tiredly different subject. And perhaps the worker that paid for his catch halled cow dung all day - would that make the life of the trapper seem somehow trite by comparison.

Why vilify the statesman or the cashier because they buy their food? This is entirely different - it is playing a tune to like minded - but I am not of like mind - it is simply a diversion from tapes in your head that came out in the post.

 

 

 

I wonder if, especially these days, there is even more meaning to be found.
[...]
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'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.

Edited April 24, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Spotless]

I did not mean to misrepresent everything you said, and please forgive me if it came off as harsh.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Spotless

[dust]

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.

[Stosh]

 

 

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).

 Precious pearl !

[Geof Nanto]

The ends justfy, the means ,,,  which means   they validate the hunter and his methods 

This part I figure youd be familiar with,  its a common argument.

 

A person that who has forgotten the snare, must have already gotten the rabbit.

This is the logical leap its just turning the view in reverse, like,,ummm , black is not white, so ,white is not black 

 

So he is justified and validated. 

This just ties the second part back to the first in reverse fashion again.

 

Wanting to hear from they guy who has done it, made his choices and lived with them , makes sense vs asking someone who is only theorizing... they are in no position to give advice nor judge.

Ummm, 

I want a guy who has painted houses, to paint my house. Why should I hire the guy who hasnt done it? Would you want the inexperienced surgeon ? Until youve gone and done something you dont really know the pitfalls and drawbacks.

 

 

Does that help explain me better ? Speliing it out makes it look complicated but in normal everyday speech , maybe with two political candidates standing next to one another on the podium, ,, it would be clearer. Its like someone telling me I dont know what I am talking about. 

 

Yes, I understand what you mean now. I definitely agree with " Until youve gone and done something you dont really know the pitfalls and drawbacks." My problem was I was so trapped in my own interpretations of the allegory that I couldn't relate it to what you were seeing. I'm not sure how much I agree with as it relates to the allegory - but I definitely like the way your thinking breaks through previous interpretive boundaries, 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Darkstar

[Geof Nanto]

I think Zhuang Zhou would concur with Jung when he writes……..

 

“The writing lies before you and always says the same, if you believe in words. But if you believe in things in whose places only words stand, you never come to the end. And yet you must go an endless road, since life flows not only down a finite path but also an infinite one. But the unbounded makes you anxious since the unbounded is fearful and your humanity rebels against it. Consequently you seek limits and restraints so that you do not lose yourself, tumbling into infinity. Restraint becomes imperative for you. You cry out for the word which has one meaning and no other, so that you escape boundless ambiguity. The word becomes your God, since it protects you from the countless possibilities of interpretation. The word is protective magic against the daimons of the unending, which tear at your soul and want to scatter you to the winds. You are saved if you can say at last: that is that and only that. You speak the magic word, and the limitless is finally banished. Because of that men seek and make words.  He who breaks the wall of words overthrows Gods and defiles temples.”

 

From The Red Book,  C G Jung

[Stosh]

Yes, I understand what you mean now. I definitely agree with " Until youve gone and done something you dont really know the pitfalls and drawbacks." My problem was I was so trapped in my own interpretations of the allegory that I couldn't relate it to what you were seeing. I'm not sure how much I agree with as it relates to the allegory - but I definitely like the way your thinking breaks through previous interpretive boundaries, 

Thanks, thats certainly as nice as I could hope to hear.

Novelty , the favorite child of ignorance , never leaves my side for long.

 

I agree strongly that its just super hard to tell how much of ones interp is entirely a creative function. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

Novelty , the favorite child of ignorance , never leaves my side for long.

 

More positively I'd say "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few."  From Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki. (And I'm certainly no expert here.)

 

 

I agree strongly that its just super hard to tell how much of ones interp is entirely a creative function. 

 

Yeah, but the beauty of allegory is that it encourages creative function.