Mair 13:4

[Marblehead]

Confucius went west to deposit some books in the royal library of the Chou dynasty.  Tzulu {{A disciple of Confucius.  His name may be rendered as "Sir Road."}} counseled him, saying, "I have heard that there was a librarian of the Chou named Old Longears.  He has given up his post and returned to live in his own house.  If you wish to deposit some books, sir, you might try going to see him for advice [on this important matter of state]."

"Good idea," said Confucius.  So he went to see Old Longears, but the latter did not accede to his request.  Whereupon Confucius launched into an exposition of the twelve classics to convince him.

Old Longears interrupted his speech, saying, "You're being too verbose.  I just want to hear the gist of it."

"The gist lies in humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

"May I ask," said Old Longears, "whether humaneness and righteousness are human nature?"

"Of course," said Confucius.  "If the superior man is not humane, he will be incomplete.  If he is not righteous, he will lack vitality.  Humaneness and righteousness are truly the nature of man.  What more need he concern himself with?"

"May I ask," said Old Longears, "what is the meaning of humaneness and righteousness?"

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

"Ai!" said Old Longears, "these last words of yours are dangerous!  Isn't the doctrine of universal love impractical?  And being without partiality to others is being partial to oneself.  If, sir, you wish to cause all under heaven not to lose that which shepherds them, then consider heaven and earth which assuredly have constancy; the sun and the moon which assuredly have brightness; the stars and the constellations which assuredly are arrayed; the birds and the beasts which assuredly group together; the trees and bushes which assuredly stand tall.  Merely liberate your integrity as you walk along and comply with the Way as you hurry on, sir, and you will get where you're going.  Why must you promote humaneness and righteousness so energetically as though you were beating a drum in search of a lost son?  Ai! sir, you are bringing confusion to the nature of man!"

[Stosh]

I think this suggests that Chuang is against endorsing principles which rub against normal human responses. To take the ' better angels' of mans nature and promote them as absolutes is indeed a cause for confusion. We have an individual morality which may in part be mirrored by someone else , but the moral doesn't exist as a physical truth independent of the persons adhering to it. That's the difficult part to get ,since its ordinary to figure our own views as being in accord with a right-ness. 

I think historically Confucius felt that , as long as he could get everyone on the same page.. that society would have an established standard of morality , which then one could conform to , and it didn't really matter which thing was deemed to be right.

 

Traffic patterns could be arranged so that opposite bound traffic, is on the left side of the car , OR the right, with the Driver on either the left, or right side of the vehicle. He , Confucius , would just say Pick one! and that would become a 'right' way to arrange it. We might say that if the driver is in the right-hand seat and traffic passed on the left , maybe there would be fewer deadly collisions to drivers, dunno. But if you drive in countries with alternate arrangements , one generally concedes that its just a matter of custom , and not 'rightness'. 

[Marblehead]

When I read that section I imagined Old Longears as Lao Tzu.  It couldn't have been Chuang Tzu, of course, as he wasn't born yet.

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

17 hours ago, Marblehead said:

When I read that section I imagined Old Longears as Lao Tzu.  It couldn't have been Chuang Tzu, of course, as he wasn't born yet.

 

 

 

 

The author potentially could be anyone who lived after the characters , but from that vantage could mix and match anyone from any past time and indicating accurate sentiments of past persons . Right?

For ex:

This reminds me of a time when President Lincoln said to Pablo Picasso, "I don't understand what you've done there, with the burnt umber. " 

[Marblehead]

Yep.

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Yep.

 

I thought the old longears was traditionally a name for Chuang, was it not?

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I thought the old longears was traditionally a name for Chuang, was it not?

Don't know.

 

But the story wouldn't fit him.  He wasn't a librarian as far as I know.  But Lao Tzu was a "keeper of records" which would be similar to a librarian.

 

Of course, Lao Tzu didn't retire to his home but went off to the borderlands.  I don't recall but I think Chuang Tzu pretty much stayed home.

 

 

[Marblehead]

I just looked on the net and the only reference to a person called Old Longears referenced Mair's translation.

 

But I did note that a person called Longears is considered to be a person of good fortune.

 

[Stosh]

5 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Don't know.

 

But the story wouldn't fit him.  He wasn't a librarian as far as I know.  But Lao Tzu was a "keeper of records" which would be similar to a librarian.

 

Of course, Lao Tzu didn't retire to his home but went off to the borderlands.  I don't recall but I think Chuang Tzu pretty much stayed home.

 

 

Ok, then substitute Dan where I said Chuang. I thought Mair was telling chapters from Cz. 

[Stosh]

I see that Dan and means ears or something , and thats associated with Lao , but the wording in the story , seems like it belongs more with Cz than Lz , certainly not Cf who is the rube once again, which I expect in Cz. 

In re-scribing the stories, I just don't know whether authorship and names were changed willy-nilly to satisfy the muckety -mucks who happened to be holding power at any given time., so my habit is to ignore names and try to see past them , like you did considering the wise guy here as Lao,  because he was a librarian of sorts.

I'm fine with any way that works out I won't be getting royalties. 

 

Guy 2 says to guy 1, that he is conflating moral rightness with established standards and shouldn't be. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah, if history is fairly accurate, Confucius was a young man when Lao Tzu was in his 60s.

 

Yes, I think we should read it as a story being told by Chuang Tzu or one of his disciples.  Therefore the wording would sound like that of Chuang Tzu.

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, if history is fairly accurate, Confucius was a young man when Lao Tzu was in his 60s.

 

Yes, I think we should read it as a story being told by Chuang Tzu or one of his disciples.  Therefore the wording would sound like that of Chuang Tzu.

 

I can easily see it that way and accept the correction as solid. So what do you make of the significance?

[Taoist Texts]

13 hours ago, Stosh said:

I thought the old longears was traditionally a name for Chuang, was it not?

 

Laozi - Wikipedia

 

His surname was Li and his personal name was Er or Dan. He was an official in the imperial archives and wrote a book in two parts before departing to the west. In another, Laozi was a different contemporary of Confucius titled Lao Laizi (老莱子) and wrote a book in 15 parts. In a third, he was the court astrologer Lao Dan

[Marblehead]

11 hours ago, Stosh said:

I can easily see it that way and accept the correction as solid. So what do you make of the significance?

Well, let's look:

 

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

"Ai!" said Old Longears, "these last words of yours are dangerous!  Isn't the doctrine of universal love impractical? 

 

Confucius wanting to change the nature of man and Lao Tzu (Old Longears) warning that this is dangerous.

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

8 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

Laozi - Wikipedia

 

His surname was Li and his personal name was Er or Dan. He was an official in the imperial archives and wrote a book in two parts before departing to the west. In another, Laozi was a different contemporary of Confucius titled Lao Laizi (老莱子) and wrote a book in 15 parts. In a third, he was the court astrologer Lao Dan

In a 'third' , what? incarnation? 

[Stosh]

52 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Well, let's look:

 

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

"Ai!" said Old Longears, "these last words of yours are dangerous!  Isn't the doctrine of universal love impractical? 

 

Confucius wanting to change the nature of man and Lao Tzu (Old Longears) warning that this is dangerous.

 

 

 

 

Why would it be dangerous ? that people love one another. It could be read that long ears wants things to be status quo. Violence and aggression , No?

Edited January 26, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why would it be dangerous ? that people love one another. It could be read that long ears wants things to be status quo. Violence and aggression , No?

Isn't universal love impractical?  Put too many rats in one cage and they will naturally kill each other.  Humans do the same thing.

 

No, not promoting violence and aggression.

 

Merely liberate your integrity as you walk along and comply with the Way as you hurry on, sir, and you will get where you're going.

 

In other words, follow the Way of Tao instead of trying to remold man into something that is not natural.

 

[Taoist Texts]

22 minutes ago, Stosh said:

In a 'third' , what? incarnation? 

may be) but wiki says "traditional account"

[Stosh]

24 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

may be) but wiki says "traditional account"

Well tradition being what it is,, I figure there's some room for speculation. It could be three guys ,or one guy, or no guys who authored any of the...  anthologies? 

[Stosh]

36 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Isn't universal love impractical?  Put too many rats in one cage and they will naturally kill each other.  Humans do the same thing.

 

No, not promoting violence and aggression.

 

Merely liberate your integrity as you walk along and comply with the Way as you hurry on, sir, and you will get where you're going.

 

In other words, follow the Way of Tao instead of trying to remold man into something that is not natural.

 

Depends on the universal love degree, here in the US, we think that there is supposed to be SOMe level of generalized concern for others. It's not unlimited, its just broadly applied, and I don't think that generalization is all that unnatural. You'd have to apply it unnaturally , to say,, umm Ted Bundy . No?

[Taoist Texts]

47 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Well tradition being what it is,, I figure there's some room for speculation. It could be three guys ,or one guy, or no guys who authored any of the...  anthologies? 

IMHO it is one and the same guy. But yes, could be any of the above. Murky waters of the  millennia past, the forbidding fog of the forgotten history.

[Stosh]

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

The use of the word loyal here seems a bit skewed to how we use it, in this context it looks more like the idea is perhaps a generalized duty of allegiance - a sentiment which might be expressed as 'for the people' and one coincidentally associated with the phrase wei wu wei , or so I have heard. ( which would situate this Lao , as being anti- wu wei , if thats a correct translation of the term

[Marblehead]

8 hours ago, Stosh said:

Depends on the universal love degree, here in the US, we think that there is supposed to be SOMe level of generalized concern for others. It's not unlimited, its just broadly applied, and I don't think that generalization is all that unnatural. You'd have to apply it unnaturally , to say,, umm Ted Bundy . No?

That's what I have been told a few times.  My observations and life experiences don't support it very well though.

 

We who follow Taoist principles are supposed to be a little more accepting though.  Moreso Buddhists and Christians.

 

Yeah, concern for others:  Yesterday when exiting a Publix there was a guy standing at the exit.  Asked me if I had some change I could spare.  I said "No."  Then pulled out my wallet and gave him a dollar.  He had a crutch for a bad leg and a wound and stiches on his forehead.  I said, "What the hell."  Pulled out another dollar and gave it to him.

 

But I can't give to everyone who is in need equally.  So we just do what we can when we can.  No universals.

 

[Marblehead]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 11:54 AM, Stosh said:

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius.

The use of the word loyal here seems a bit skewed to how we use it, in this context it looks more like the idea is perhaps a generalized duty of allegiance - a sentiment which might be expressed as 'for the people' and one coincidentally associated with the phrase wei wu wei , or so I have heard. ( which would situate this Lao , as being anti- wu wei , if thats a correct translation of the term

But remember, the Tao is impartial.  It rains.  If you aren't where it rains then you stay dry.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

On 1/26/2018 at 6:21 PM, Marblehead said:

That's what I have been told a few times.  My observations and life experiences don't support it very well though.

 

We who follow Taoist principles are supposed to be a little more accepting though.  Moreso Buddhists and Christians.

 

Yeah, concern for others:  Yesterday when exiting a Publix there was a guy standing at the exit.  Asked me if I had some change I could spare.  I said "No."  Then pulled out my wallet and gave him a dollar.  He had a crutch for a bad leg and a wound and stiches on his forehead.  I said, "What the hell."  Pulled out another dollar and gave it to him.

 

But I can't give to everyone who is in need equally.  So we just do what we can when we can.  No universals.

 

Bad experiences can lead one to conclusions which are legit , but actually end up being a negative thing , having learned it. 

Rephrased ,, not everything one learns is a boon. 

In considering what natural means , I think its normal usage to consider those things which are not mediated by humans as natural , since we all undergo socialization , none of us is entirely natural. 

Even so, Humans do have natural propensities, the somewhat predictable consequence of the interaction of ourselves and the environment we happen to be in. And in these texts I think that what is meant by a natural acting person , is a person who is in accord with the normal propensities of humanity once socialized. (An enlightened man ,or a virtuous person.)

 

Your, or my personal experiences, relative to what the texts are speaking of ,do not directly validate, or invalidate, the concept of 'the naturalness of generalized compassion'.  

Simply put, you cant just look at the shits you've known ,and presume everyone naturally is a - violent self serving animal, -though I am sure many do 'learn' that. 

 

'Learning' really means that ones mental model becomes in accord with the environment they exist in, it does not universally lead to a true view , nor does it always lead to better outcomes of ones own behavior. 

 

People learn addictions, people learn negativity , people learn anxiety , and reasons to fear. Once these things have been learned , they have ramifications of their own. These ramifications arise from the use of that mental model, formed in past circumstances , to those in the present and future. 

 

This is why the sage is used as an uncontaminated model of idealized human nature. This is why that model , known as the sage , seems bizarre, and yet may make an emotional type of -sense.

One cannot truly get to that ultra basic caricature, but it represents a direction to head in. 

We tend to be our own worst enemy , and that's basically learned behavior. 

IMO as usual.  

Edited January 29, 2018 by Stosh