[lit-ideas] dao
- From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:28 +0000
This wholly correct. Self evidently virtually nothing *is* a capital character
(Chinese is not alphabetical, classical is ~76.000-82.000 characters,
"simplified" [simplified = the print you see on the RPC news papers] is
relatively smaller and graphically eased on.)
The Wade-G has drawbacks and it was abandoned, decades ago, and pinyin is
commonly used when writing chinese alphabetically. Phonetically 't' 'd' is not
marked distinguishable in mandarin (Chinese of the north), quite like 'p' 'b'
in Arabic, both classical & modern. Nothing hinges on how the English spelling
of dao is executed, slightly more acute is the question of what dao is
(something along the lines of 'the nature of' 'the way of') in my opinion dao
is not metaphysics, though I have been rather more than I should if I were an
expert by the work of chad Hansen, which - I take it-is available by oxford
university press (a masterpiece, called daoist interpretation of Chinese
thoughts)
Chad is also very informative on (webpage/urL)
http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: 03 March 2015 08:22
To: Lit-Ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: that and this
Is lower-casing "dao" instead of writing "Dao" significant?
P.S. For those who may not know already, writing "Dao" instead of "Tao" is only
a difference in romanization, "Dao" is in pinyin, the romanization adopted by
the Peoples Republic of China. "Tao" is in the Wade-Giles romanization that
was, at least back in the sixties, more common in Western writing about China.
Most scholarly writing now seems to have shifted to pinyin.
John
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Adriano Palma
<Palma@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The dao will get to you
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 03 March 2015 02:47
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: that and this
I give up on Thaoism then.
O.K.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:19 AM, John McCreery
<john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The most recent edition of the Taoist Canon is several thousand pages long, and
filled with prayers, incantations, and instructions for elaborate rituals to
accompany them.
That said, if by "Taoism" you mean only the texts ascribed Lao-tzu and the
Chuang-tzu, it might be worth considering the line from the former that reads,
"To the Tao we are straw dogs,"
a statement usually interpreted as conveying the utter indifference of the
universe to our desires.
P.S. "Straw dogs" refers to images of dogs burned in ceremonies, in which they
themselves have no say whatsoever.
P.P.S. Yes, there are contradictions between austere advice to adapt oneself to
an indifferent universe and producing the materials that now fill the Taoist
Canon. But if the primordial texts are right, the Tao doesn't care.
P.P.P.S. Should anyone be interested in exploring this topic more deeply, I
highly recommend Francois Jullien (1999) The Propensity of Things: Toward a
History of Efficacy in China [translated from the French original Pour une
histoire de l'efficacité en Chine, 1992.
Imagine, not that we are chessmen, who at least retain a distinctive character
and may win or lose in combat with those of different character but instead Go
stones, featureless, anonymous, restricted to the point on the board where a
player puts us, our fate determined by nothing we do but instead dependent
entirely on our position in the pattern of the game.
Consider the implications of this view for strategy, politics, poetry, art.
John
Sent from my iPad
On 2015/03/02, at 22:07, Omar Kusturica
<omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am thinking that Taoism would be the right religion for Mike and me - there
is a couple of texts to read which aren't too long and you have done with your
catechism. Also, there isn't really much in the way of prayer, as far as I am
informed.
O.K.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:44 AM, John McCreery
<john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Bravo! Bravissimo! We have a sage among us.
John
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Mike Geary
<jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Lawrence writes: "I suspect Mike Geary has read more of Emerson than I have -
my loss."
I doubt it. I tend not to read much literary criticism and commentary since
they often contradict my prejudices and I have neither the interest nor the
energy to go read the actual works -- for what? just to mount a defense of my
prejudices? They don't need any defense, they're prejudices for Christsake.
Philosophy's not so too awfully different. Except for logic, philosophy seems
to be the perfect field of study for me. Since the beginning of time and
creativity, no one has ever put forward a philosophy that was falsifiable (as
they love to say in the sciences). In short, whatever I assert is undeniably
assertable, and if assertable then, real in the assertion. Just as one of Saul
Bellows' characters said (in Gravity's Rainbow ?) when challenged to give a
rhyme for "month" responded with: "Onth. Onth rhymes with month." There's no
such word, they said. "Ah, but you're wrong," Bellows' man bellowed. "In the
assertion: onth rhymes with "month", onth is the subject of the sentence, and
as we all know, the subject of a sentence is a noun and all nouns are words,
ergo, "onth" is a word and it rhymes with month. Now that's my kind of
philosophy. But that's Literature, not Philosophy you object. Alas, you're so
literal. Philosophy is just plotless literature. Both are about ignorance and
wonder, the only difference between Literature and Philosophy is that
Literature has a lot more wiggle room. Both are trying to find out what the
hell's going on with us. Now it's been my experience that you can usually
avoid being nailed down a lot easier when arguing Lit Crit than arguing
philosophy because some philosophers seem to actually be trying to make sense
of what they're saying. There are no such straight- jackets in literature. An
example from philosophy: pick out the most cogent of the following: (1) I
think ...in a manner of speaking. (2) I think I am therefore I think . (3) I
think I think I am. (4) I think I am, therefore I think I am. (5) I think I
am not therefore I am. (6) I am therefore I think I am. (7) I think not,
therefore... (8) I am I before I am knowing I think. (9) I am thinking
that I am thinking that I think. Etc., etc., etc.
I've always like Literature and Philosophy because both have always seemed so
wondrously frivolous and unfalsifiable and yet so urgently near to my own
existence. Although ideas are often argued with passion, none of it matters
--- except in the challenge to one's own little cosmos. Existence doesn't seem
to give a shit what we think. Often I wish I were far, far more read into
philosophy, but I know I'll never be . Occasionally I'll stick my toes into
some inviting waters and thrill to the confusion and challenge of it. To me
it's fun, even when most of the arguments leave me out in left field. Life is
fun. I would never have believed that being 71 can be so damn much fun. Let
me be hopelessly, totally, completely wrong, I don't care. I'm jubilant in my
error. All I want is to get as many Existence kisses as I can before I go
where no thinking goes...therefore ...
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324<tel:%2B81-45-314-9324>
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.wordworks.jp/
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
