Mair 12:14

[Marblehead]

The filial son who does not fawn upon his parents and the loyal subject who does not flatter his lord are the best kinds of sons and subjects.  When a son assents to whatever his parents say and approves of whatever they do, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  When a subject assents to whatever his lord says and approves of whatever he does, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  But can we be sure that this is necessarily so?  When someone assents to whatever common opinion assents to and approves of whatever common opinion approves, he is not declared to be a flatterer.  Is common opinion, then, more stern than a parent and more respected than a lord?

If you call someone a sycophant, he will instantly change countenance; if you call someone a flatterer, he will angrily change countenance, though he be a lifelong sycophant and a lifelong flatterer.  He brings together similes and dresses up his diction to attract the multitudes, but from beginning to end, from top to bottom, he'll never admit his guilt.  He lets his robes hang down, displays their brilliant colors, posturing and putting on airs, so as to captivate the whole world, but he doesn't call himself a flatterer.  He is just a follower of those others who goes along with what they hold to be right and wrong, but he himself doesn't admit to being one of the crowd.  This is the ultimate folly.  He who knows his folly is not the greatest fool; he who knows his delusion is not greatly deluded.  He who is greatly deluded will not be released from delusion his whole life; he who is a great fool will not become smart his whole life.  If three men are walking along and one of them is deluded, they will reach their destination because the deluded are in the minority.  But if two of them are deluded, they will walk in vain without ever reaching their destination because the deluded are in the majority.  Today, all under heaven are deluded.  Though I pray for their guidance, it cannot be had.  Is this not sad?

Great music will not have any effect on the ear of a villager, but he will laugh with glee when he hears "Breaking the Willow" or "The Bright Flowers."  For this reason, lofty words do not remain in the minds of the masses.  Refined words make no impression because vulgar words are in the majority.  A couple of jugs {{Primitive earthenware musical instruments (like the ocarina or the jugs in a jugband).  They can also punningly indicate alcohol.}} will delude the bell-player, and his aims will not be achieved.  Today, all under heaven are deluded.  Though I pray for their guidance, how can it be had?  Knowing that it cannot be had yet forcing it upon them is but another delusion.  Therefore, it would be best just to let them go and not push myself on them.  If I do not push, who among them will feel anxiety?

The leprous woman gives birth to her child in the middle of the night.  Quickly she snatches a torch and looks at it with dread, fearing only that the child may resemble herself.

[Stosh]

Thats pretty grim, and looks nothing like what has been posted before. Does it declare  that change is not going to happen? because the forces which dictate who we are ,remain pervasive?

Extending the same rationale, which is here directed towards others, to ourselves, it seems ..a grim verdict

 

With more consideration, the thrust of this passage may be exposure and judgement. Theres two points that I dont think this handles. One , is that we can consider our presentation to be genuine to us . And secondly, The person of high standard may not be secretly guilty of gross transgressions, they may just feel a heightened importance about some issues. 

If in any way one can intentionally change their standards of outward behavior, I think they could be credited with some level of internal change. The issue becomes the depth at which the change is made, and whether it represents just a new spin to the same objectives. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Stosh

[Taoist Texts]

9 hours ago, Marblehead said:

The leprous woman gives birth to her child in the middle of the night.  Quickly she snatches a torch and looks at it with dread, fearing only that the child may resemble herself.

what's this all about?

[Marblehead]

9 hours ago, Stosh said:

Thats pretty grim, and looks nothing like what has been posted before. Does it declare  that change is not going to happen? because the forces which dictate who we are ,remain pervasive?

Extending the same rationale, which is here directed towards others, to ourselves, it seems ..a grim verdict

 

 

Yeah, This passage is pretty heavy, IMO.

 

From my perspective, an Anarchist, I see it suggesting that we should not be sheep.  We should not follow the leader if the leader is of evil character. 

 

Just because our parents and neighbors do something ordered by someone else doesn't mean that it is the best thing to do nor does it present a mandate for us to do that same thing.

 

And, of course, I like this very much.  I have said it a number of times before in various manner:

 

"He who knows his folly is not the greatest fool; he who knows his delusion is not greatly deluded."

 

But I agree, the passage doesn't look very favorably on humanity.  But then, the same things are still happening today so that should tell us something about the evolution of the human species.

 

 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

what's this all about?

Ha!  You're asking me?  To this passage Burton Watson noted:

 

"Is this sentence intended to belong with what precedes it or with what follows?  I am unable to tell."

 

So even he asked your question.

 

I think it might just be a transition from the concepts above to the concepts that follow indicating that the concepts are linked and perhaps even dependent upon each other.

 

[Stosh]

It looks added on, like a notation. But it relates fine. The last thing she wants to be exposed to , her disfigurement and shame will constantly be shoved in her face, magnified exponentially. Same as the guy being called a toady or phony. 

Syphilis would probably be clearer than leprosy.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, This passage is pretty y, IMO.

 

From myan Anarchist, I see it suggesting that we should not be sheep.  We should not follow the leader if the leader is of evil character. 

 

Just because our parents and neighbors do something ordered by someone else doesn't mean that it is the best thing to do nor does it present a mandate for us to do that same thing.

 

And, of course, I like this very much.  I have said it a number of times before in various manner:

 

"He who knows his folly is not the greatest fool; he who knows his delusion is not greatly deluded."

 

But I agree, the passage doesn't look very favorably on humanity.  But then, the same things are still happening today so that should tell us something about the evolution of the human species.

 

 

It suggests to me that this is simply an inevitable component of the human condition. The piece also seems to suggest that he considers his own efforts ,that which he would confer, are a waste of effort which backfires ,making people uncomfortable. While I get the point, I would like to contest some of his assertions,, unfortunately he isnt living. 

It could be that tis dao survives precisely because its so cagey and nonconfrontational. He would like to have been more of a positive influence but seems to have become a bit pessimistic which prevented him from pushing us hard.

I think , we are hinted to examine ourselves but also that this May not work.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I was watching a Columbo episode last night, and when pressed for advice ,he told the guy to do the right thing. Its this kind of evasion which in  throughout These passages. I think he here is explaining why. (BUT I am not willing to excuse this ploy on this basis, unless an explicit directive is uncovered somewhere )

ps, and he should agree with me , if the son has to to break with his father to establish himself as a worthy man in his own right, he ,as author needs to break with the flattering niceties to establish his stance is not just a flattering ploy. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I could also read in that it may have been his great fear, one night by torch, to read this brain child intended to be a creation of love and found it to be a swiss cheese of unspoken meaning. But that may be too imaginative of me, Ill have to see if there is a sustained shift in tone going forward. 

[dawei]

21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, This passage is pretty heavy, IMO.

 

From my perspective, an Anarchist, I see it suggesting that we should not be sheep.  We should not follow the leader if the leader is of evil character. 

 

Close... just drop evil character as that is an opinion piece.

 

We should not simply, mindlessly, follow... ergo, don't be brain-less.

 

Same for leper lady... fear tends to follow this path.

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, dawei said:

 

Close... just drop evil character as that is an opinion piece.

 

We should not simply, mindlessly, follow... ergo, don't be brain-less.

 

Same for leper lady... fear tends to follow this path.

Yeah, I don't remember why I included the term "evil character" but I guess it seemed to me to be appropriate at the time.

 

And yes, my opinions are sometimes included in my responses.  But then, I have no problem being called out on them.

 

 

[nestentrie]

On 12/19/2017 at 3:13 AM, Stosh said:

ps, and he should agree with me , if the son has to to break with his father to establish himself as a worthy man in his own right, he ,as author needs to break with the flattering niceties to establish his stance is not just a flattering ploy. 

 

his stance is not just a flattering ploy? Or it is? I can't parse your grammar. If it isn't a ploy, then what is it?

 

 

[Stosh]

12 minutes ago, nestentrie said:

 

his stance is not just a flattering ploy? Or it is? I can't parse your grammar. If it isn't a ploy, then what is it?

 

 

If his actions- words expressed, are continually edited in such a way , so as not to risk our disapproval , this is the type of flattery,   which would make him unfit to lead us or teach. ( My grammar was intended to show the similarities between lordship and authorship within one sentence, (I generally presume Mh and Tt are familiar with this speech habit of mine.) 

Say you go to school to learn Spanish, and your teacher is afraid to correct your diction , because you will resent it. Then this Spanish teacher is unfit.

It is You the student, who is expended to bend conform and change, the teacher isn't there to kiss your spoiled behind ,and have you walk away not having learned the material. 

If the son never makes decisions for himself without daddies approval , then he hasn't learned for himself where he is about to screw up. He hasn't had to live with the consequences of his own decisions and he isn't proven as a leader. 

So If Cz is too soft , does not confront us , does not lend a clear direction or vector to his lessons, and leaves us guessing , then he would deem himself to have been a sucky teacher , to get us to read his dao, and he has sacrificed his intent for the audience.,, (making him a flatterer, who sacrifices their integrity to fawn on someone else's good humor- ours). 

 

[nestentrie]

On 12/18/2017 at 9:48 AM, Marblehead said:

The filial son who does not fawn upon his parents and the loyal subject who does not flatter his lord are the best kinds of sons and subjects.  When a son assents to whatever his parents say and approves of whatever they do, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  When a subject assents to whatever his lord says and approves of whatever he does, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  But can we be sure that this is necessarily so?  When someone assents to whatever common opinion assents to and approves of whatever common opinion approves, he is not declared to be a flatterer.  Is common opinion, then, more stern than a parent and more respected than a lord?

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201004/what-is-the-best-way-give-advice

 

I'll assume people will read the link, and so I'll just jump right in.

 

Advice for a particular option, and advice against a particular option are really two aspects of the same thing i.e. preference. Information supply is necessary information. Decision support is what both parties desire.

 

http://juliahwest.com/prompts/dramatic_situations1.html

 

Take your pick from supplication. I'll go with C1 Supplication of the powerful for those dear to the suppliant.

The father and Lord are the powers in authority; the son and minister are the supplicants; and you might say common opinion is dear to them all.

 

With need there is attentiveness; generosity (or if you want to go catholic: oblation); and persuasion. It could go back and forth between the power and the supplicant, but for ease lets assume the power is in the position of need. Attentiveness on the part of the power goes to the information provided in the supplication; generosity on the part of the power goes in giving the benefit of the doubt to what the supplicant is arguing for; and power being on the receiving end of common opinion goes for persuasion (or being persuaded).

 

For preference you have anticipation; solemnity (or graveness or gravity); and readiness. The son and minister prefer already being aware of what the power will pay attention to and so prepare their arguments accordingly. The son and minister are also aware that the decision lies in the desire of the power, so grounded solemnity pays proper respect to the chain of command. Readiness also follows for when that decision comes to bear.

 

Desire for what is dear to all is reserve; coherency; and respite. Both parties don't necessarily know the aim or implication for the common opinion. Coherency ensures it. Respite is the reward.

---------------------

These are just some ideas from my work. I could go further to the quote, but I guess i'm feeling lazy. No one replies to my posts.

 

 

 

 

[nestentrie]

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

( My grammar was intended to show the similarities between lordship and authorship within one sentence, (I generally presume Mh and Tt are familiar with this speech habit of mine.)

I got that part.

Your sentence was this:

 

On 12/19/2017 at 3:13 AM, Stosh said:

if the son has to to break with his father to establish himself as a worthy man in his own right, he ,as author needs to break with the flattering niceties to establish his stance is not just a flattering ploy. 

 

Your sentence needed to be:

If the son has to break with his father to establish himself as a worthy man in his own right, he, as author, needs to break with the flattering niceties to establish that his stance is not just a flattering ploy.

 

[Stosh]

Thanks, but I am pretty ingrained in my speech habits, grammar cramps my style.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

13 hours ago, nestentrie said:

These are just some ideas from my work. I could go further to the quote, but I guess i'm feeling lazy. No one replies to my posts.

 

 

Well, I'm going to reply.  It's my job, you know.

 

Yes, you did go heavy with this one.  And you have stated observations, not opinions.  One point for that.

 

Indeed, what inspires us to do the things we do?

 

In this section of the Chuang Tzu I think we can say that opinions were presented.  We may agree or disagree.

 

But then again, a key concept in the Chuang Tzu is that we follow our own nature.  

[Stosh]

18 hours ago, nestentrie said:

---------------------

These are just some ideas from my work. I could go further to the quote, but I guess i'm feeling lazy. No one replies to my posts.

 

 

 

 

I just wrote a big long explanation as a reply , It's the one right before you said 'no one replies'. 

Being lazy myself, my grammar, which is a rigid structure to impose upon the fluid grace of my thoughts , is often shoddy, and this has been upbraided. But as with many of the great writers of poetry , we expect the audience to consider the meat of what has been said, for, often the point may be lost when subjected to restrictive rules. 

When one writes , there is either a second draft  to formulate , OR , ones ideas are just so simple that they fit easily into grade school structures. Do you not consider what you have said ? and play these words which have bubbled up from the subconscious back to yourself to see if they are sufficiently explanatory? SUrely yes, and so , you should also be able to recognize that the way the sentences are phrased changes the content. 

In your post , I have no idea what you are getting at , though the grammar might be fine ,( I don't know).  So I , for one ,wouldn't jump to respond to it. That would be foolish of me , right? To start blabbing a response to a post in legalese which I cant understand. 

So I will bestow two tidbits of well meant advice ( a dangerous gift in any circumstance) , one is that one shouldn't assume that the audience is willing to run off and follow links. ( I didn't ,,and only rarely include any myself, .. because I think my ideas do not need the crutches) And the second, is that you could try letting your thoughts flow more organically, apply less rigor , and be less concerned about whether Mrs. Goldstein from  6th grade english class would approve ,( or any of us either ) .

As the great book says , "Nothing is left undone ,since there is nothing needing to be done". 

See? Now thats great prose!

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Stosh

[nestentrie]

I've started on the wrong foot. I apologise.

 

What I set out in my post are the sorts of attributes of helpfulness. Helpfulness is the kind of pivot of respect, and also (of the Ws: who, what, where, when, where, how, why) the HOW of it. I figure this section of the zhuangzi is about helpfulness. Where I see others of the Ws in other sections, i will come into the thread with those attributes.

I will come at the section again, though in another post.

[Starjumper]

On 12/18/2017 at 6:28 AM, Marblehead said:

But I agree, the passage doesn't look very favorably on humanity.

 

Most or all advanced masters don't look very favorably on humanity either.

[nestentrie]

On 12/18/2017 at 9:48 AM, Marblehead said:

The filial son who does not fawn upon his parents and the loyal subject who does not flatter his lord are the best kinds of sons and subjects.  When a son assents to whatever his parents say and approves of whatever they do, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  When a subject assents to whatever his lord says and approves of whatever he does, it is the common opinion of the world that he is unworthy.  But can we be sure that this is necessarily so?  When someone assents to whatever common opinion assents to and approves of whatever common opinion approves, he is not declared to be a flatterer.  Is common opinion, then, more stern than a parent and more respected than a lord?

 

Your comment to this was right, stosh, that if son or minister won't step out of the shadow of their superior and potentially make their own mistakes, then they haven't learnt anything for themselves.

 

 

Quote

If you call someone a sycophant, he will instantly change countenance; if you call someone a flatterer, he will angrily change countenance, though he be a lifelong sycophant and a lifelong flatterer.  He brings together similes and dresses up his diction to attract the multitudes, but from beginning to end, from top to bottom, he'll never admit his guilt.  He lets his robes hang down, displays their brilliant colors, posturing and putting on airs, so as to captivate the whole world, but he doesn't call himself a flatterer.  He is just a follower of those others who goes along with what they hold to be right and wrong, but he himself doesn't admit to being one of the crowd.  This is the ultimate folly.  He who knows his folly is not the greatest fool; he who knows his delusion is not greatly deluded.  He who is greatly deluded will not be released from delusion his whole life; he who is a great fool will not become smart his whole life.  If three men are walking along and one of them is deluded, they will reach their destination because the deluded are in the minority.  But if two of them are deluded, they will walk in vain without ever reaching their destination because the deluded are in the majority.  Today, all under heaven are deluded.  Though I pray for their guidance, it cannot be had.  Is this not sad?

 

The thing here is propriety, where propriety is a function of preference. All need, and all desire, yet it's our preference that has us choose our desire now over the neutral need. Or, indeed, it is preference that delays the gratification of desire, deeming the timeliness of need more critical.

From DDJ 38:

 

[...]

(Those who) possessed the highest (sense of) propriety were (always
seeking) to show it, and when men did not respond to it, they bared
the arm and marched up to them.

Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, its attributes appeared;
when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence
was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the
proprieties appeared.

 

[...]

 

The son and minister are making hypocrites of themselves; at one time delaying their own gratification so that they can speak flowery words to their superior, and then in the same breath (just on a different occasion) putting their own aims first and oppressing all involved in affairs. This is subversive, and runs counter to helpfulness and respect.
 

As to the details I said in my previous post:

On 12/20/2017 at 10:34 AM, nestentrie said:

For preference you have anticipation; solemnity (or graveness or gravity); and readiness. The son and minister prefer already being aware of what the power will pay attention to and so prepare their arguments accordingly. The son and minister are also aware that the decision lies in the desire of the power, so grounded solemnity pays proper respect to the chain of command. Readiness also follows for when that decision comes to bear.

 

 

Underneath the preference of anticipation there is the rage of propriety. Underneath the preference for solemnity there is despondency, or flat affect that can neither influence, nor be influenced. Underneath the preference for readiness is severity.

[Marblehead]

But then I would ask:  Why do the politically correct thing if we think it is wrong?

 

 

[nestentrie]

47 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

But then I would ask:  Why do the politically correct thing if we think it is wrong?

 

 

 

I'm not sure which option you're pointing to as being politically correct, but it's a good question. I think Zhuangzi is trying to point out that ambition in the place of helpfulness leads to delusion. It's admixture.

 

That we think people should make their own shadows, instead of parroting wrong views, is correct in a technical sense, but to abandon the hope of helpfulness misses the mark. The son will be the father one day, and the minister might well be sovereign, but does that mean they get to play master before their time? And besides, if they understand now what their job is, they understand that when they're master then it will be time for them to rely on the capabilities of subordinates. Their working lives are over, even if when master the final decision rests on their opinion.

So really I think that the common view, that we should be making our own decisions is delusive (at least in this context). Judge correctly, or not? Yes; make new shadows. Help the superior, or not? Double yes! However, do it not out of some misplaced or faulty sense of loyalty (the superior just wants honest input) but rather in earnest service of the truth. And, most certainly, don't do it to angle the game and make a name for yourself.

 

 

[nestentrie]

Some observations, or notes.

 

What is descriptive of all this are three virtues, or three attributes that indicate virtue. What's needed is earnestness. What's preferred is strength (or the enduring quality). What's wanted is honesty. As for earnestness and honesty, they are two Daoist adjuncts of the Three Treasures, namely; Gentleness, and Economy. In the Catholic sense, they are adjuncts of Faith and Charity. Strength indicates Fortitude (in the Catholic sense), or Equanimity (in the Buddhist sense) and support the adjuncts.

 

The subordinate playing games with earnestness, making sly remarks or dressing things up with flowery and flattering language, is guilty of conceit - the antithesis of earnestness. Being accused of wrongdoing and rolling up the sleeve is obstinacy (refer to Zhuangzi: The Old fisherman). Zhuangzi is the honest one when he says he doesn't know how to help.

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, nestentrie said:

 

I'm not sure which option you're pointing to as being politically correct, but it's a good question. I think Zhuangzi is trying to point out that ambition in the place of helpfulness leads to delusion. It's admixture.

 

I'm enjoying your input.  It's nice to see alternate perspectives.  I get bored sometimes listening to only my own perspective.

 

Sure, we should help when we can.  But I think it is important to ask ourself if we feel we are travelling the best path before offering our help.