[lit-ideas] Re: that and this
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:19:23 +0900
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/
>
Other related posts:
