Mair 7:1

[Marblehead]

Gnaw Gap asked Princely Scion four questions, but he couldn't answer any of them.  This made Gnaw Gap so happy that he jumped up and went off to tell Master Rushcoat.

"Did you only find that out now?" asked Master Rushcoat.  "The clansman of the freehold at Yu {{The mythical emperor Shun.  On page 204, there is a hidden allusion to the legend that Shun's own father and stepmother repeatedly tried to kill him when he was a child, but that his extreme filial piety finally won them over.}} was not up to the clansman T'ai.  {{Supposedly the mythical first man, Fuhsi.}}  The clansman of the freehold at Yu treasured humaneness as a means of coercing humanity.  While it may be that he did win over humanity, he never got out into nonhumanity.  Clansman T'ai's dozing was so contented and his waking so peaceable that at one moment you might think he was a horse and at the next moment a cow.  His knowledge was trustworthy, his integrity very true, but he never entered nonhumanity."

[Taoist Texts]

This is a sequel to an earlier story, which actually listed the 4 questions

 

Nie Que asked Wang Ni, saying, 'Do you know, Sir, what all creatures agree in approving and affirming?'

'How should I know it?' was the reply.

'Do you know what it is that you do not know?' asked the other again, and he got the same reply.

He asked a third time, 'Then are all creatures thus without knowledge?' and Wang Ni answered as before,

...

Nie Que said (further), 'Since you, Sir, do not know what is advantageous and what is hurtful, is the Perfect man also in the same way without the knowledge of them?'

Wang Ni replied, 'The Perfect man is spirit-like. ...

http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han/ens?searchu=王倪#n2729

 

 

 

[Stosh]

That which all animals agree upon is as follows , loosely speaking,,

 

Look out for number one

relative morality 

thou shalt not do that which is self destructive 

To thine own self be true, is the point of this excerpt

[dawei]

ZZ has shown a disdain for the Confucians elevation of rulership of the FIve Emperors.   ZZ goes back to Fuxi (Tai clan.... which I posted elsewhere as "He is also known for the ruler name Tai Hao (太昊 - Great Magnificant), Tai Di (太帝 - Great Emperor)..."

 

I find the main idea to be Fuxi was peaceful but he did not ascend to the spirit level (but he never entered nonhumanity).  

 

Fuxi is not spirit-like and maybe this is part of humanities descent from original humanity (big ?)

 

 

 

[Stosh]

Spirit like,  here, is to play ones role , to be what one is,  without being ,, diverted.

He could manipulate the people with intentional niceness , but he was manipulating rather than being genuine.

Acting with intent , rather than have the effect simply be side effect of his spiritual 'advancement'.

While the dude could throw himself into a trance smoothly,  and effectively act like a horse,  , he wasn't actually a horse ,

and so again , this is not actually being true to ones own nature.

This relates to the animals ironically agreeing in that they disagree, since each has its own instinct which is to preserve itself and perpetuate if possible. Creatures being without knowledge of this type are therefore , yes , entirely genuine , as are spirits.

"I ams what I ams , and thats all I am." Popeye the Sailor man 

[Marblehead]

Nice pick-up Stosh.  There is even more to it than that though.

 

It is a contrasting between Yu (Confucius) and T'ai (the first [natural] man).

 

The last sentence causes confusion.  It is speaking of Yu, not T'ai.

 

[Taoist Texts]

16 hours ago, dawei said:

 

 

I find the main idea to be Fuxi was peaceful but he did not ascend to the spirit level (but he never entered nonhumanity). 

 

This non-humanity "非人" is a bit of a riddle, i was not able to find a definition for it.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

This non-humanity "非人" is a bit of a riddle, i was not able to find a definition for it.

Yu never got into non-humanity (oneness, or maybe undefinability), T'ai did.

 

[Marblehead]

Also consider, T'ai slept without dreams, awoke without worries.

 

 

[Brian]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

Also consider, T'ai slept without dreams, awoke without worries.

 

 

Me, too.

 

 

OK, I do dream occasionally.

[Marblehead]

Consider also that sometimes T'ai thought himself a horse, sometimes a cow (and sometimes a butterfly).

 

[Stosh]

30 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Nice pick-up Stosh.  There is even more to it than that though.

 

It is a contrasting between Yu (Confucius) and T'ai (the first [natural] man).

 

The last sentence causes confusion.  It is speaking of Yu, not T'ai.

 

How do you see this as contrasting the behaviors of the two?

[Marblehead]

The clansman of the freehold at Yu treasured humaneness as a means of coercing humanity. 

 

T'ai's dozing was so contented and his waking so peaceable that at one moment you might think he was a horse and at the next moment a cow. 

[Stosh]

 His knowledge was trustworthy, his integrity very true, but he never entered nonhumanity."

So how can we distinguish whether this means he knew how to manipulate , but didnt become a manipulative jerk, Or if despite knowing what he was doing , it didnt help him personally either because he was acting intentionally?

Edited May 18, 2017 by Stosh
expand

[dawei]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Nice pick-up Stosh.  There is even more to it than that though.

 

It is a contrasting between Yu (Confucius) and T'ai (the first [natural] man).

 

The last sentence causes confusion.  It is speaking of Yu, not T'ai.

 

 

Yu is Emperor Shun.

 

I didn't read the last sentence as to Yu but to Tai... that reads awkward if it is about Yu. 

[dawei]

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

This non-humanity "非人" is a bit of a riddle, i was not able to find a definition for it.

 

ERIC S. NELSON

THE HUMAN AND THE INHUMAN: ETHICS AND RELIGION IN THE ZHUANGZI

 

知天之所為, 知人之所為者, 至矣。知天之所為者, 天而生也; 知人之 所為者, 以其知之所知, 以養其知之所不知, 終其天年而不中道夭者, 是 知之盛也。雖然, 有患, 夫知有所待而後當, 其所待者特未定也。庸詎 知吾所謂天之非人乎？所謂人之非天乎？且有真人而後有真知。

To know what is done by nature, and also what is done by humans, that is genuineness (zhen). Knowing what it is that nature does, one lives in accordance with nature. Knowing what it is that humans do, one uses the knowledge of what one knows to nourish the knowledge of what one does not know, and lives out the years that have been given without being cut off midway—this is the genuineness (zhen) of knowledge. However, there is a difficulty: Knowledge must wait for something before it can be applicable, and that which it waits for is never certain. How, then, can I know that what I call nature is not really human, and what I call human is not really nature? There must first be a genuine (zhen) person before there can be genuine (zhen) knowledge.

 

This passage indicates the need of unfolding an awareness of what is human and what is nonhuman in their mutuality. Such a boundary breaking awareness, or the enacting of a nontheoretical or nonconceptual knowing, can only transpire in the self that is the realization of their balance and harmony and thus one who perceives naturally (i.e., in accordance with constitutive vital forces and processes). Perceiving one’s world naturally and effortlessly “like the infant” is only possible through a bodily, emotional, and mental self-cultivation that surpasses method, technique, and calculation.31 There is accordingly no way (i.e., dao as the whole) without the one who makes the path by wandering it (i.e., de 德 as the singular being within the world, its focusing of the field, and its virtuosity).32 This suggests the priority of an ethical enactment of a comportment and disposition rather than a mystical or metaphysical claim about an object designated heaven or nature. In this naturalistic yet nonreductive ethics of the singular, or “ethics of difference” as Yong Huang has described it, the natural world, as an interconnected web of processes and singularities, cannot be recognized without the cultivation and relationalizing singularization of the genuineness that encounters and recognizes it.33 To the extent that Lao-Zhuang Daoism indicates a cultivation and culture of nature, it does not draw an absolute distinction between nature and culture but only between its more or less genuine and ingenuine modes.34 It is not an impersonal or anonymous naturalism, nor a mechanistic or even organic naturalism, as it reorients and balances the human within the natural.35 Nor is it naturalistic primarily in the sense of being skeptical and antimetaphysical.36 Such moments in the Zhuangzi suggest an ethics of naturalness in which the human recognizes itself in recognizing its interconnectedness within the fabric of life-processes, and freely responds to and nurtures the natural bodily world and the myriad things.

[Taoist Texts]

Thanks Dawei. The gist of this para is that 

 

Fuxi 未始入于非人 have not yet entered into non-human action

while

Yu 未始出于非人 have not yet exited into non-human action

therefore

Fu is better than Yu.

 

 

 

 

[dawei]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

Thanks Dawei. The gist of this para is that 

 

Fuxi 未始入于非人 have not yet entered into non-human action

while

Yu 未始出于非人 have not yet exited into non-human action

therefore

Fu is better than Yu.

 

I was tempted to look at the chinese.  Thank you

 

The comment on Yu is quite curious though and less clear.   Sounds like he possesses no potential [yet] for the non-human.  Fuxi had the potential but just didn't cross that bridge ?

[Taoist Texts]

Yeah...ZZ's language is not easy in general but this para. takes the cake.

Tantalizingly, ZZ dangles plenty of clues in another para on Yu(?):

 

备物以将形，藏不虞以生心，敬中以达彼，若是而万恶至者，皆天也，而非人也，不足以滑成，不可内于灵台。灵台者有持，而不知其所持，而不可持者也。不见其诚己而发，每发而不当，业入而不舍，每更为失。为不善乎显明之中者，人得而诛之；为不善乎幽闲之中者，鬼得而诛之。明乎人、明乎鬼者，然后能独行。
Geng-sang Chu:    
Where things are all adjusted to maintain the body; where a provision against unforeseen dangers is kept up to maintain the life of the mind; where an inward reverence is cherished to be exhibited (in all intercourse) with others - where this is done, and yet all evils arrive, they are from Heaven, and not from the men themselves. They will not be sufficient to confound the established (virtue of the character), or be admitted into the Tower of Intelligence. That Tower has its Guardian, who acts unconsciously, and whose care will not be effective, if there be any conscious purpose in it. If one who has not this entire sincerity in himself make any outward demonstration, every such demonstration will be incorrect. The thing will enter into him, and not let go its hold. Then with every fresh demonstration there will be still greater failure. If he do what is not good in the light of open day, men will have the opportunity of punishing him; if he do it in darkness and secrecy, spirits will inflict the punishment. Let a man understand this: his relation both to men and spirits, and then he will do what is good in the solitude of himself.

 

which is a huge can of worms in itself.

[dawei]

Where is that bogeyman passage from, what chapter and translator? 

[Taoist Texts]

20 minutes ago, dawei said:

Where is that bogeyman passage from, what chapter and translator? 

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/geng-sang-chu/ens#n2893

 

[Marblehead]

11 hours ago, Stosh said:

 His knowledge was trustworthy, his integrity very true, but he never entered nonhumanity."

So how can we distinguish whether this means he knew how to manipulate , but didnt become a manipulative jerk, Or if despite knowing what he was doing , it didnt help him personally either because he was acting intentionally?

I can't fairly speak to your question as I don't want to put in the section something that isn't there.  I really don't think Chuang Tzu considered Confucius a jerk.  But I do believe Chuang Tzu was against Confucius' attempts to change the nature of man.

[Stosh]

12 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I can't fairly speak to your question as I don't want to put in the section something that isn't there.  I really don't think Chuang Tzu considered Confucius a jerk.  But I do believe Chuang Tzu was against Confucius' attempts to change the nature of man.

 But that's exactly what I want you to do , Put stuff in that isn't expressly there! Its called ' filling in the blanks'. 

Its seems with the constantly fluctuating use of names , that these might not be Confucius and Chuang, or they could be.  

 I'm in the camp that thinks those two had significant opinion differences ,,, like you said ,, on whether the non- instinctual nature of man was the aspect which made man civilizable or if it was the reverse case being true , that mans basic nature was the wellspring of what could be seen as ciivilized.

But I don't want to get stuck on petty nuance deciding if the characters are opposed ,or what personages they represent.

( though I think 'Jerk'  is exactly ! his personal opinion of Conf. ) 

Anyway , one of the redirects here posted aimed me at a guy who seemed to think that the whole thing was written to suggest that humans weren't like animals , I assume , because we are learners more than instinct followers., to which I would reply , Who cares? Whats the importance of that ? This is what you would want to pass on to posterity? 

I don't mind when people disagree with me , it does however bug me, when studiers get so wrapped up in intellectual minutia , they neglect to ever come to an encompassing vision of the overall message ... which brings me back to the start ,, filling in the blanks is whats important. 

( the empty spot in the wheel or bowl or building is the useful part , in there is potential , the rest are spokes) 

If I tell stories that have a moral associated with it, the idea is that youre supposed to glean from your own experience so that you can relate to it . If I want you to get an intellectual factoid that you dont need to relate to , Ill just say it.  These authors take a circuitous route which circumscribes the essence of something , they want and expect you to fill in the blank.  They describe the outside of the camel , and the reader is supposed to understand that its a camel.  They don't just Say ,It's a camel. 

I held him up for ridicule, and he glared back in stony silence ....... so you know as reader that I have some kind of negative issue with him and he resents me, you understand the intensity and the emotions but maybe not the reasons , which I could supply but this point is made. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Stosh
expansion

[Marblehead]

Yes, I know you Stosh.  You want acceptable answers to your questions.  I can understand that.

 

This section is using two mythical characters for presenting a concept.  The concept is well hidden, IMO.  Based on what I know of Chuang Tzu's writing, I have to suggest that the concept is that of structuring humanity (man) vs allowing man to live naturally.

 

Brook Ziporyn speaks much better to this section:

 

" ...

But the man of the Youyu clan is no match for the man of the Tai clan.  A Youyu still harbors Humanity in his breast, with which he tries to constrain other human beings.  He may be able to win people over that way, but in doing so he never gets beyond criticizing people, considering them wrong.  A Tai, on the other hand, lies down to sleep without hurry and wakes without cares.  Sometimes he thinks he's a horse, sometimes he thinks he's an ox.  Such understanding is truly reliable, such Virtuosity deeply genuine.  For they never involve him in criticizing other human beings, in considering them wrong."

 

This is why I stated in the above post that Youyu was Confucius and Tai was Chuang Tzu.  And the "Butterfly" story is similar to thinking to be a horse or ox.

 

 

 

[Stosh]

Very beautifully illustrated , I looked to see if I could download Ziporyn but didn't see anything in that form , I may order something though, now , since I really like the writing you just presented.