[lit-ideas] Re: that and this
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 08:31:09 +0000 (UTC)
>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>
Was relieved to know this. For a mo I feared the East fell prey to lethal
schisms like those that wracked the West between Protestants and Wrotestants.
Who now remembers the Wrotestants?
Dnl
On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 6:21, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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 originalPour
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/
Other related posts:
