[lit-ideas] Re: : dao
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 17:50:10 +0900
Isn't "naive realism" almost as slippery a notion as the Dao? Consider a
small ethnographic example. While doing fieldwork in northeastern Taiwan,
Stevan Harrell conducted a small survey that included the question, "Why do
you participate in festivals?" where the festivals in question celebrate
the birthdays of various Chinese deities. The sample was not statistically
significant, but the numbers are still interesting. Three of Harrell's
fourteen informants were what he labeled "local theologians." Each had
constructed an idiosyncratic philosophy incorporating elements from
traditional Chinese cosmology. One, an old woman, was the village atheist.
She said bluntly that the whole business was nonsense. The remaining ten
said only, "It is the custom." Harrell didn't, as I recall, press the
issue, but having done fieldwork myself in central Taiwan, I suspect that
even the village atheist would turn when sick to Chinese medicine, whose
explanation incorporates the same sorts of elements from traditional
Chinese cosmology as the village theologians' philosophies: at least the
Yin and Yang and the five agents (earth, water, fire, wood, and metal). The
elements in question are considered part of everyday reality by billions of
Chinese and have been so for more than two millennia. Does that make them
naively realistic?
John
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Though one of the few things detectable by the dao is that whether there
> isn't or there is god as the religious people claim is utterly irrelevant
> (to be issuing a disclaimer: one the features that show how stupid idiots
> like Heidegger are is to claim this that and the other, then add that that
> is the destiny of western metaphysics, & it is the destiny of imbecility,
> since lots of thought systems have no metaphysics, if one were forced to
> adopt one would be something like what the intellectuals call realism, or
> naïve realism, something along the lines of 'yes, there is a universe or a
> few universes', let us move to something interesting. Obsessive compulsive
> personalities, such as dummett, rorty, Davidson, & McDowell et al
> immediately debate whether or not there is really reality or just a bit or
> what what not of reality is real, preferred targets gods, numbers, moral
> valuations, truth.. & und so weiter, the dao is silent...)
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 03 March 2015 17:43
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: dao
>
>
>
> Hm... maybe it's just me, but Tao or Dao sounds a little like theus or
> deus.
>
>
>
> O.K.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Nice point about the capitalization and the lack of any such thing in
> written Chinese. The Western habit of capitalizing "Dao" or "Tao" is, one
> suspects, a hangover from Christian missionaries who saw in dao an
> equivalent to "God."
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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> wrote:
>
> The dao will get to you
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 03 March 2015 02:47
> *To:* 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>
> 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> 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>
> wrote:
>
> Bravo! Bravissimo! We have a sage among us.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Mike Geary <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
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
>
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
