Subject: Re: Versions of *Tao Te Ching*?
From: [email-masked]
Date: 2 Sep 1993 10:07:27 -0700
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Donald Uitvlugt) writes:
>
>What English translation of the *Tao Te Ching* would you recommend to
>someone just starting to study Taoism, and why?

As many as possible.

Stephen Mitchell's is beautiful and goes down easily; unfortunately it 
suffers from his belief that all religions are ultimately California
Zen; he's diddled with it a little bit.

Robert Henricks' translation is good and scholarly and available in 
a very nice edition.

Arthur Waley's is a classic.

These are fairly easy to find.

        Tom Price  | heaven and earth regard the 10,000    | [email-masked]
****************** | things as straw dogs, baby  -- TTC    | ******************

From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Versions of *Tao Te Ching*?
Date: 2 Sep 1993 10:04:54 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Donald Uitvlugt) writes:
>What English translation of the *Tao Te Ching* would you recommend to
>someone just starting to study Taoism, and why?

	I started with Te-Tao Ching translated by Robert G. Henricks (in
harcover then, paperback now) myself.  (ISBN 0-345-34790-0)  Very good 
introduction sections and good starter descriptions on varrious basics.  
Other books I'd suggest are:
	The Way of Chuang Tzu (Thomas Merton.  He even admits his personal
bias and explains that any translation will be a personal one.  ISBN
0-8112-0103-1)
	The Tao of Pooh
	The Te of Piglet (Sorry, I loaned my copies to someone just a day ago
and don't know the author off hand or the ISBN # either.)

>Also, do I remember correctly that someone has a PostScript version
>availible through the net?

	The what?  Could someone explain that to me please?

>Thanks for your help!

	Just keep in mind that the Tao Te Ching is not the final (or even
first) word in Taoism.  There are many styles from many teachers and nature and
experience are the best teachers.

>DJU

							Weird

From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Versions of *Tao Te Ching*?
Date: 2 Sep 1993 16:39:04 -0700

9-2-93
 
Hey Hello,
     Am here again, it's a real nice thing to come back to the net and find
  people talking bout tao. Anyway in response to your quire...   Have read
  around 10 translations and really like the Witter Bynner one its very simple
  and clear. Great for the start of the path.  The Jane English translation
  is also very beautiful...Please approach  the path not thinking, simply watch
...

From: [email-masked]
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Taoism
Date: 3 Sep 1993 12:08:24 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
>930726 [Both of these are X-posts from AOL.:>]

>What is tao?

	What color is the air?  Ask the question correctly, and I might have a
chance at answering it.

	[sencond post]

>Is it 'towism', 'dowism' or 'dtowism'?

	None of the above.

>What is a tao?

	Tao can be translated as path or road if you wanted to get literal. 
So, everyone has A tao but there is also THE Tao which can't be explained and
must be experienced.

>Who was Lao Tzu?

	A writer.  He held little concern for the 'human-world' realizing that
it hadly effected the universe in any significant way.

>What is the _Tao Te Ching_?

	A book.  One that's hard to translate to English for that matter.

>Who was Chuang Tzu?

	A satyrical writter who is one of the best Taoist writters who is known
and proven to exist.  His writtings are sometimes used to explain Taoism in
favor of the Tao Te Ching by those who look at it from a functional view in
stead of a classical view.

>What is the _I Ching_?  Is it taoist?

	A 3,000 year old text.  Currently its been known as a book, but its
original form was a searies of bamboo sheets, each with a hexagram. 
(Hexagram=2 trigrams on top of eachother).  It could be thought of as the first
binary system as well.  It is one of the first Taoist writtings, but is often
given credit as Confucian because Confucious wrote highly of it.

>What is the mystical practice of breath-control and chinese yoga to 
>which Chuang Tzu and other popular taoist writers have referred?

	It is part of T'ai Chi Ch'uan.  Using it, one can do many things. 
There are breathing exercizes to prevent yourself from being burned for
example.  (Well, if your hand holds a hot metal pot and you drop it fast you
could prevent a burn, but if you're dunked into a fire....)  However, the most
amazing magic is to eat when hunry and sleep when tired.

>Is there anything to this taoist alchemy?

	Bepends on which part you're refering to.  Taoist sexual alchemy I
don't presonally believe in and I think that most Taoists laugh at it as well
to be honest.  Its Taoist because a Taoist made it.  No big reason.

>Have people ever become immortal through sex?

	Not to my knowledge.  If someone had, it'd mean an end to
Christianity's dogma I'd think ;)

>What is te, anyways?

	It could be translated to virtue.  Read _The_Te_of_Piglet_ in the first
few chapters to get a really good idea of its meanings.

>What does it take to become a taoist?

	If you're interested in it, read about it and ask more questions like
these and you'll have a slow start.  In time (a year or so?), you'll realize
what all this REALLY amounts to and you'll become one without realizing it or
intending or forcing yourself.  (In fact, if you focus to it, you'll never be
one.  Sorry, but that's how Taoism is.  Trying means you don't achieve is a
basic idea to it.)

>What are the chances that neo-taoist scum will take over the universe 
>and convert it to a mass-production scheme for little tai chi patches 
>and correct translations of _Tao Te Ching_?? ;>

	Very slime last I checked..... Uh, ya, still about one to
56789043213458740575939.  ;)

>Tyagi Nagasiva (Question Monitor)
>[email-masked]

	Thanks for cross posting these Tyagi.  I can't afford to join a net
like AOL or CompuServe.  I hope you're posting these responces back to them. 
(pleeeeease... ;)

								Weird

To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 01:58:04 -0400
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu

Peter offers an example of his use criterion:
>Let's try a simple example, and see how far we get. I read, say, a
>pedagogic explanation of arithmetic.

Since to address this specific example - one which presupposes that
mathematical objects are universal, eternal, exist in-themselves prior to
the discovery of any theoretician or student, have a life (or essence) of
their own apart from any empirical applications, etc. - would require
taking on that notion of mathematical objects, which would require a
lengthy exposition, let me reply instead with a counter example.
        Suppose I were a Chinese peasant farmer living on commune back in
the sixties, and I revered Mao's little red book. To me it serves as Holy
Writ. I also have Peter's view that "use" is the meaning of the text. Thus,
when I read that Mao says, "Plant the seeds deep!", I ignore whatever it's
original context might have been, and instead take it as agricultural
advice (which is what would be most useful for me). So I convince my fellow
farmers that we must follow Mao's advice, and we plant all our seeds deep
in the ground... in fact too deep. Next year there is nothing to harvest
because nothing grew, and lots of people are without food they might have
had otherwise.
        Did I and my fellow farmers understand the "meaning" of the text?
Would Mao think so? Would most analysts of the situation? Is Mao and his
book to be disgarded as useless and dangerous, or was the danger perhaps in
the criteria I used or failed to use in my reading?
        This silly little story apparently really happened.

>The tao being ineffable, how can you 'recover' it?

Tao is not ineffable. See my "Retracing the Human-Nature vs. World-Nature
Dichotomy in Lao Tzu", Journal of Chinese Philosophy 17, June 1990,
187-214, for my full argument (based on a careful reading of the first
chapter of ttc: The first line should not be translated as everyone does,
but literally says:
"(if) Tao(s) is/(are) able to (be) Tao(-ed), (then they) are not always
Tao(s)." In brief, The first Tao of the sentence is undecidable in meaning;
the second treats tao as a verb or process, the third tao as a noun or
fixed thing. The word "tao" by itself is indeterminate as to which it is
(verb or noun), but once it is put into a sentence it is forced into one or
the other meaning, excluding its contrary. "These pairs emerge together,
but are differently named." The pont is not to choose an "eternal tao"
while rejecting a "tao-able tao," but to become aware of the grounds for
differentiation. In fact the structure of the chapter suggests that if
either the verb or noun version is to be treated with some suspicion or
disdain, it's the noun version. Parallel structure - one of the most
important conveyors of semantic use in Chinese literature - places all the
other 'rejectables' (according to the people who misread the chapter as
condoning such choices in the first place) in the second position of the
successive pairs while accepting the first part of each pair
(Nameless/named, desireless/with desire). See the piece for the full
argument.

>
>This seems a rather Platonic idea of a text. I should say that the meaning
>of a text inheres to the use in which its readers see fit to employ it.

Poor peasant farmers!

>Texts can be abstract, with no 'true' or 'original' context, and still find
>use - and in this use is their meaning to the individual user. So a text is
>nothing less than a tool, its meaning defined by its reader in relation to
>his world.

This is standard relativism, but not very "useful" for sorting out
misreadings, misappropriations, and dangerous exploitations from more
considered interpretations.
        You speak of tools; the most useful tool for interpreting the ttc
(though not foolproof all by itself, as the plethora of silly translations
proves) is learning Chinese. When dealing with an old text, one cannot
simply assume that the author automatically shared the sensibilities and
views of our contemporaries. Our female colleagues don't even share the
views of their own mothers - and read/interpret male and female characters
in very different manners. I had an undergraduate student obviously
well-trained in another class to attack anything that relied on male
pronouns. While reading ttc (in English) she complained repeatedly about
the sage being a "him." I repeatedly told her that there were no gendered
pronouns in Chinese at all, and that usually no pronoun at all appears, all
the "he(s)" and "him(s)" had been provided by the translator to make the
text readible in English. The poor student would pause for a second and
then continue the same point. Unfortunately for her the only "use" any old
text was allowed to provide was an exemplification of the evil sexism that
she and her contemporaries were on a crusade to stamp out. Sadly, she
missed all the feminine (if not feminist) imagery and ideology of ttc. Put
another way, to her, either ttc really did have masculine pronouns or else
it was useless.

        I agree with Peter that our difference of opinion on this does not
make everything we do or say incommensurate. I am not against generic ttcs
(provided they are carefully constructed) nor is Peter against gaining
contextual insights insofar as they assist him in his task. While we
communicate and argue (there's nothing like a good argument!), I think we
both know where our substantial agreements lie. We are certainly not
ignoring each other.

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

From: Peter Alexander Merel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu
To: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 10:01:51 EST

Dan writes:
>I find it hard to agree with any of this. If "use" is your context (i.e.,
>the "meaning" of a text is the Use I can put it to), then you are right
>that this is at some odds with hermeneutic theory, but wrong to think that
>you have discovered a sense of meaning different from context. 

Let's try a simple example, and see how far we get. I read, say, a
pedagogic explanation of arithmetic. From the various examples I
'recover' the various axioms that structure arithmetic - commutativity,
distributivity, the algorithms that accomplish the operations of addition
and multiplication and so on.

Now I have the use of arithmetic, and I can do all kinds of useful
things with it, And I say that I know what arithmetic and its
components mean. I have not recovered the context of the pedagogy - I
may employ arithmetic as a tool in any number of contexts. The context
of the pedagogic examples is thus a specialisation of their meaning.  No?

>>[...] that use can be conveyed by metaphor where context can
>>not. I guess I'm suggesting that context is a specialisation of meaning. 
> 
>Context can not? Isn't the "context" of ttc the "tao," and isn't that a
>metaphor? 

The tao being ineffable, how can you 'recover' it? 

>I was suggesting a much broader sense of context than you have
>responded to. The context of the author embodied by his/her text - which
>may or may not be in tune with the authors stated or implicit intention -
>informs the text; the author is the occasion for the context to be so
>embodied. That's why lots of ancient literature has no author byline, or
>what today we consider pseudepigraphic bylines. Texts are meant to embody
>contexts such that they point their readers back at the context.

This seems a rather Platonic idea of a text. I should say that the meaning
of a text inheres to the use in which its readers see fit to employ it.
Texts can be abstract, with no 'true' or 'original' context, and still find
use - and in this use is their meaning to the individual user. So a text is
nothing less than a tool, its meaning defined by its reader in relation to
his world.

If I design a spanner, it is with this knowledge - that I cannot restrict
the uses to which it can be put. Indeed, flexibility of use is often the
hallmark of a good tool. I design the spanner so that it can be used in ways
that I think of as like a spanner, but that does not restrict the meaning of
the thing I produce. A spanner can be used as a hammer, even though that use
is not my design. It is sufficient for my purpose that a spanner can be used
as a spanner.

>        So while you may think you have a more direct route to Tao (as
>metaphor) than through the historical context of ttc, I suggest that if
>that is true, forget about ttc (which is hopelessly enmeshed in its
>context) and find more direct avenues of expression. Failing to do so
>leaves the door open to exploitation (or just misunderstanding), neither of
>which I know you would wish to do.

What I wish is to provide generic access to the ideas in the ttc - to
provide a tool. For tools to be useful, they must be accessible and
symmetrical. So I have no interest in picking words that correspond
precisely with the original chinese. I have interest in picking words
that correspond as well as they can to the original meaning, because I
believe that meaning to be useful. To paraphrase ttc Chapter 11, words
are arranged into a text - because of its meaning we find it useful.

--
Internet: [email-masked]          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

To: DanLusthaus <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu 
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 93 12:00:06 -0400

Dan takes Peter to task for a "use=meaning" criterion, and since I
was talking about the _Blue and Brown Books_ a little while ago,
I feel compelled to dig myself in a little deeper. So to speak.

>        Suppose I were a Chinese peasant farmer living on commune back in
>the sixties, and I revered Mao's little red book. To me it serves as Holy
>Writ. I also have Peter's view that "use" is the meaning of the text. Thus,
>when I read that Mao says, "Plant the seeds deep!", I ignore whatever it's
>original context might have been, and instead take it as agricultural
>advice (which is what would be most useful for me). So I convince my fellow
>farmers that we must follow Mao's advice, and we plant all our seeds deep
>in the ground... in fact too deep. Next year there is nothing to harvest
>because nothing grew, and lots of people are without food they might have
>had otherwise.
>        Did I and my fellow farmers understand the "meaning" of the text?

I believe you to be talking past Peter here, Dan. If he is consistent in
his handling of the "use=meaning" principle then he will reject the notion
of "understanding the `meaning'". By definition you and your fellows got
meaning out of the text -- it's out of bounds to speak of _the_ meaning.
And of course Mao would be horrified if he found out what had happened.
But: there isn't any meaning until the text is used, and then the original
speaker can decide whether or not he likes the meaning that got across,
as evidenced by the actions he sees. If he doesn't like it he can try again.

>Would Mao think so? Would most analysts of the situation? Is Mao and his
>book to be disgarded as useless and dangerous, or was the danger perhaps in
>the criteria I used or failed to use in my reading?

I think what you're driving at here is for us to imagine Mao rubbing his
chin and saying "that wasn't my intent." But the use of `intent' in
sentences such as that is very problematic. It strongly implies to us
that when we say something, we have a mind-object in our head which is a
representation of all possible uses that our words can be put to, called
our `intent'. I put to you that such an idea is an illusion, and when we 
speak we just speak without consciously thnking through all the ramifications
of our statements. So long as nobody surprises us we can carry on in this
fashion indefinitely. However, when somebody ends up putting potatoes 
six feet in the ground we stop, imaginatively back-construct images of a 
set of behaviours we think would be reasonably evoked by our statement,
and then say "that wasn't my intent." In fact what we really mean is
"I'm surprised that you did that."

LW's _Philosophical Investigations_ contains about a jillion little
thought-experiments about the grey areas in the use of words such as
"intent".

        Tom Price  | heaven and earth regard the 10,000    | [email-masked]
****************** | things as straw dogs, baby  -- TTC    | ******************

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:58:28 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu

>Dan, it must be the fault of the quick email response, try not to mislead
>the non-chinese readers, there are no nouns or verbs in Chinese!

While it is true that Chinese did not think about grammar and grammatical
analysis until quite late, and characters - since they do not alter to
reflect different parts of speech, the same character may function as a
noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc. - are generally not easily definable as
one particular grammtical type, and that syntax (phrase structure, and the
location of a character in a phrase) rather than grammar is the major
determinant of meaning in a chinese sentence (which, since they didn't
start using punctuation until quite late, one may want to argue that
Chinese has no "sentences" either), and that, in order to analyze and
translate Chinese "sentences" we have to impose a grammatical order
nonexistent in the original, and that Chinese relies to a degree
unparalleled by Indo-European languages on CONTEXT for meaning rather than
grammar, etc. etc. etc.
        Nonetheless I contended in my article that Lao Tzu is precociously
hitting on a primitive grammatical notion in the first line of ttc, namely
the differentiation of nouns and verbs. Thus what he does with "tao" is
equivalent to what we might do with the English word "lead." It might be
the verb lead (you will lead the troops) or the noun (who's in the lead) or
the other noun (that's no lead, it's graphite). But his point - forgive the
Western analogy - is similar to asking whether God is a noun or a verb, a
thing or an activity? That's why the second line of ttc repeats the exact
verbiage of the first line, except it replaces tao with 'ming' (name/s or
to name). He is pointing out that the apparent dichotomy between tao/verb
and tao/noun is linguistic, mirrored precisely in the word for 'naming.'
"if name(s)/naming/to-name is able to be named, then it's not a fixed
name." i.e., if names are assignable, then whatever is assigned a name was
something without that name earlier, thus names are not eternal coexistents
to the things they name. If something's name has always been its name, then
it can never be named (assigned a name) by anyone. That linguistic dilemma
is another example of "these things arise together, but are differently
named", even though it's the same chinese character (ming). Which of the
two options does LT side with? He wouldn't want to throw either option out
of language, since we use both to communicate; we just shouldn't treat them
as occasions for picking sides and rejecting the other side. And we know
that LT believed 'names' are assignable (I don't know what to call it, so
I'll name it great..."), so he's definitely not rejecting the "verb" side
of things.
        Agreed, technically noun-verb are problematic designations (names)
for what is going on chinese, but Chinese characters do have nominal,
verbal, etc. functions (unless you think we translators are making up
everything). When Chad Hansen talks about Chinese terms as "mass nouns" do
you reject the "mass" or the noun" part of his thesis?

> Also really nothing gender specific, the Chinese were/are
>sexist parexcelance ren human really means the "real humans" ie men.
>do you really think they were including women? certainly the confucians
>were not, but maybe the feminist Taoist like LT were,

Chinese is particularly interesting in this regard because it is a case of
an absolutely gender-neutral language that nontheless accompanied a
thoroughly sexist conception of the socio-political order. That perhaps
throws the project of neutering English as a means of battling sexism into
doubt. Agreed, Confucians "implied" 'man' when the character ren was used.
But with LT's emphasis on yin rather than yang, the issue is more
ambiguous. I'm surprised that we don't have a translation of ttc that
feminizes the whole text ("grammatically" it would be as accurate as the
"masculine version"). One of my students in fact, following my suggestion,
did that (she didn't know Chinese, so she feminized the Feng-English
version). There wasn't a single passage that seemed awkward or improper,
and in fact, a few offered some delightfully new connotations (I didn't
keep a copy, and don't remember exactly which passages they were; only the
impression they made on me).

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:58:23 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: tiers

>Oh! I see, Dan, "tiers of recurent patters" but not interconnected or
>interpenetrating! I guess those Hua-yen and Tientai fellows never had
>any "Taoist" influence either--I know prattitasamupada (or how ever
>you spell it.

What I'm saying, Jim, is that with Tiantai and Huayen an explicit rhetoric
and systematic methodology for defining the pluriverse as interconnected
arises.
        Prior to that, the more usual route is to mumble something about
the universe inhaling and exhaling, that those inhales/exhales are encoded
in the I-ching diagrams, and that everything in the universe follows their
pattern. Things are connected insofar as they arise from a common source;
not insofar as all directly affect every other thing.
        The interpenetration you recounted is closer to the Huayen variety
(which does not make appeals to the metaphysical ground as anchor but
rather lets all things interpenetrate). Lt's is closer to (though not
exactly the same as the I-ching universe. But why should we quibble? If you
think LT considered the pluriverse interconnected in the sense you
advocate, is there any evidence for that in the text itself?

>ps for the record this jim never "stated the official party line that 
>ch. 17 of CT is to be exiled" just the opposite I agreeded it was/is
>part of the CT philosophy.

Since you are on the record as stating that some of the most distinctive
passages of "the CT philosophy" (such as the Hui-shih exchanges) are
emendations (or am I getting that wrong too?), and you did make a sarcastic
remark about me and ch. 17 a while back, forgive me if you have me totally
confused. Is there a CT philosophy apart from the so-called "authentic
passages"? Or do you accept (in whole or in part) the Graham stratification
of topical "philosophies" embedded in the CT text (which he at least
hierarchizes as closer to or more remote from the thinking of CT)? Is CT's
"philosophy" something distinct from CT the writer? Do the various hands
you believe had a part in the text all share the same philosophy (=CT's
philosophy)? Or is CT's philosophy the aggregate of whatever managed to
survive Kuo-hsiang's editing? I'm genuinely confused (and interested) by
your position. Could you clarify it? 

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:58:35 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu

Thomas Price, reiterating his "understanding" of Wittgenstein, writes:
>I believe you to be talking past Peter here, Dan. If he is consistent in
>his handling of the "use=meaning" principle then he will reject the notion
>of "understanding the `meaning'".

By ignoring my example and instead playing semantics you may be talking
past me (and the implications of my example).

> By definition you and your fellows got
>meaning out of the text -- it's out of bounds to speak of _the_ meaning.

Out of whose bounds? I'll leave it for others to decide whether
Wittgenstein is this sort of relativist; but Thomas is condoning precisely
what I suggested were the failures of that criterion: it is useless for
sorting out expoitative, dangerous misreadings from more genuine readings.
I'm not talking about _the_ meaning: the phrase "the seeds should be
planted deep" obviously can be applied in many ways, including the way the
farmers applied it. Nor am I arguing that an author's intention is the
final or only word on the subject of a text's meaning (but it shouldn't be
ignored altogether) - I thought my description of the author's relation to
his/her context made that clear (Peter thought I was being platonic!).
Maybe I can clarify further: texts (qua structure) not only have *a*
context (of which meaning is the activity of recovering), but multiple
contexts; ttc has spiritual, military, social, ethical, political,
meditative, etc. contexts, sometimes embedded in the same passage. The
fuller reading would be the one that recaptures the most of them. Anything
else impoverishes the text.
        While someone may find it "meaningful" to appropriate a text in an
unsound manner (why else do it?), it is not out of bounds to ask about
levels of accuracy, reading in, etc. When Wittgenstein says the World is
the totality of meanings, and I say that means he advocates _the_ meaning,
he is an absolutist, by what criteria can you tell me I am wrong? I'm
certainly *using* his text, and, in the context of our discussion, in a
meaningful way, but am I close to the "meaning" of the text?

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

To: DanLusthaus <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Do Do Do, Da Da Da (Was Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 93 15:01:43 -0400
From: [email-masked]

I'm not taking this to email yet because it seems to be indirectly useful
to a lot of more common, obviously on-topic threads. Apologies if anyone
finds it inappropriate. I could be the only one with clear benefit to my
understanding of Taoism here.

Dan Lusthaus:
[Thought experiment: peasant farmers reading "plant the seeds deep" in
Mao's little red Book.]
> Me
>> By definition you and your fellows got
>>meaning out of the text -- it's out of bounds to speak of _the_ meaning.

>Out of whose bounds? I'll leave it for others to decide whether
>Wittgenstein is this sort of relativist; but Thomas is condoning precisely
>what I suggested were the failures of that criterion: it is useless for
>sorting out exploitative, dangerous misreadings from more genuine readings.

I'll stand by that. Just as in dictionary usage, the only standard of
meaning is that of the community of language-users. Exploitative and
dangerous misreadings are to be corrected by feedback from the community;
there is no consistent methodology nor criterion for sorting out more
from less genuine readings. It all comes back ultimately to the social 
values of the community of language users and these cannot be systematized.

Consequently, a case can be made for the desirability of eliminating any 
implications to the contrary from our talk about language.

Incidentally, as should be obvious to everyone, I'm only an opinionated,
widely (and patchily) read layman. Earlier in this thread you spoke of
philology and hermeneutics in a detailed way, invoking a lot of jargon
and theoretical apparatus, if only in passing, with which I am entirely
unfamiliar. Could you point me and the rest of the lay readers towards 
a standard text dealing with these fields? I'd like to be able to follow 
the more learned discussion a little more closely -- and promise to not 
stick my nose in too much!

>Maybe I can clarify further: texts (qua structure) not only have *a*
>context (of which meaning is the activity of recovering), but multiple
>contexts; ttc has spiritual, military, social, ethical, political,
>meditative, etc. contexts, sometimes embedded in the same passage. The
>fuller reading would be the one that recaptures the most of them. Anything
>else impoverishes the text.

I agree entirely. But this recovery is more art than science. "Fulness" is 
subjective. "Proving" that your reading of the TTC is better than Joe
NewAger's is analogous to "proving" that Sophocles is better than Stephen
King. Sophocles *is* better than Stephen King, but all the reasons are
ultimately subjective.

>       While someone may find it "meaningful" to appropriate a text in an
>unsound manner (why else do it?), it is not out of bounds to ask about
>levels of accuracy, reading in, etc. When Wittgenstein says the World is
>the totality of meanings, 

Hey, that was the young Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, not the later
Wittgenstein of the _Blue and Brown Books_ and the _Philosophical 
Investigations_!

>and I say that means he advocates _the_ meaning,
>he is an absolutist, by what criteria can you tell me I am wrong? I'm
>certainly *using* his text, and, in the context of our discussion, in a
>meaningful way, but am I close to the "meaning" of the text?

If we can agree yes, if not, no. Hopefully we end up with a Sophocles-class
use and not a Stephen-King-class use, but there's no real way to tell. 

>Dan Lusthaus

        Tom Price  | heaven and earth regard the 10,000    | [email-masked]
****************** | things as straw dogs, baby  -- TTC    | ******************

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:47:37 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: (Was Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu)

Thomas responds:
> Just as in dictionary usage, the only standard of
>meaning is that of the community of language-users. Exploitative and
>dangerous misreadings are to be corrected by feedback from the community;
>there is no consistent methodology nor criterion for sorting out more
>from less genuine readings. It all comes back ultimately to the social 
>values of the community of language users and these cannot be systematized.

Chuang Tzu (a recognized authority on Taoism and Taoist theories of
language and meaning), in ch. 17 (which Jim now confirms is NOT in
hermeneutic exile), states:

"Observing (things) by way of Tao, things have no 'worthwhile' (kuei) or
'worthless' (chien).
Observing them by way of things, each considers itself (tzu) 'important'
(kuei) while they all consider others 'less important' (chien). 
Observing them by way of common-convention (ssu), 'honorable' (kuei) and
'contemptible' (chien) are not defined by individuals, [but communally]."

YOu want to reduce everything to the third option, on the basis of the
relativity of the second option. (The kuei/chien distinction involves all
valuative pairs in which one part is better while the other is worse).
Other passages in CT 17 and elsewhere in the text suggest that the third
option is tyrannical and illusive. On the other hand, for CT, there are
meanings not reducible to the language games people play with them (words
are like rabbit-snares, meanings/intentions (yi) are like the rabbit. Once
you've caught it, you can throw away the trap.)
        Misreadings are not corrected by the community, but by individuals
who challenge the community's status quo readings. To persuade others, the
individual must martial evidence, make explicit the criteria and methods
through which a "better" reading is made, etc.

> Earlier in this thread you spoke of
>philology and hermeneutics in a detailed way, invoking a lot of jargon
>and theoretical apparatus, if only in passing, with which I am entirely
>unfamiliar. Could you point me and the rest of the lay readers towards 
>a standard text dealing with these fields?

I don't know of any "standard" text (perhaps others can recommend their
favorite texts); there are lots of differences of opinion in the
hermeneutic community (which is not identical to the philological community
- elements of both don't talk to each other). One frequently read text that
describes the development from 19th c. philology to 20th c. hermeneutics is
Gadamer's _Truth and Method_, but I don't susbscribe to his Heideggerian
opinions. The "jargon" I was using was in part my own, and in part derived
from Antonio De Nicolas' _Avatara: The Humanization of Philosophy Through
the Bhagavad Gita_ NY: Nicolas-Hays, 1986, and in part from multitudes of
other sources.

>I agree entirely. But this recovery is more art than science. "Fulness" is 
>subjective. "Proving" that your reading of the TTC is better than Joe
>NewAger's is analogous to "proving" that Sophocles is better than Stephen
>King. Sophocles *is* better than Stephen King, but all the reasons are
>ultimately subjective.

No they are dependent on the audience/community to which appeals of proof
are being made. NewAgers will go with Joe if he tickles their NewAge bones
and/or don't find "my" readings edifying (= reinforcing their
presuppositions). So I would have to make my reading more "illuminating" to
them for them to accept it; and I would have to discern the operative
assumptions about conditions of validity for each other
community/individual I would wish to persuade. But since the "better"
reading is not ultimately determined by any one community once and for all,
such persuasive exercises do not exhaust the 'meanings' of the text, nor do
they set the standard; nor are their presuppositions "ultimately
subjective." They are intersubjective embodied theories; in fact it is the
presupposing of such theories that makes an aggregate of individuals a
community in the first place. That communities, like individuals, are
frequently myopic or blind to 'meanings' that do not justify and reinforce
the presuppositions they already hold, is no reason to reduce the meaning
of any text to their myopia. It is precisely because the meaning/context of
the text is larger than any particular community that it can be perpetually
reread in novel ways. And because its context imposes restrictions on the
full possibilities that its words (structure) may suggest to uninformed
readers willing to take whatever liberty they can get away with, there are
readings which are more accurate than others. Recovering context is not
only art AND science, but a lot of work, too.

>If we can agree yes, if not, no.

On what basis can you disagree with anything (except by intimidation from
the majority)?

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

To: DanLusthaus <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (Was Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu) 
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 01:04:16 -0400
From: [email-masked]

Summary: Dan continues to rake me over the coals. I like it. 
He invokes Chaung Tzu and then later explains a little more 
about the recovery of context.

>Chuang Tzu (a recognized authority on Taoism and Taoist theories of
>language and meaning), in ch. 17 (which Jim now confirms is NOT in
>hermeneutic exile), states:
>
>"Observing (things) by way of Tao, things have no 'worthwhile' (kuei) or
>'worthless' (chien).
>Observing them by way of things, each considers itself (tzu) 'important'
>(kuei) while they all consider others 'less important' (chien). 
>Observing them by way of common-convention (ssu), 'honorable' (kuei) and
>'contemptible' (chien) are not defined by individuals, [but communally]."
> ...
>Other passages in CT 17 and elsewhere in the text suggest that the third
>option is tyrannical and illusive. 

Chuang Tzu here seems to be telling us how to establish our value system.
I'm not convinced that he's saying anything at all about linguistic theory.

>On the other hand, for CT, there are
>meanings not reducible to the language games people play with them (words
>are like rabbit-snares, meanings/intentions (yi) are like the rabbit. Once
>you've caught it, you can throw away the trap.)

Are these _all_ meanings -- is this a general statement about language -- 
or is this CT's take on mystical insight, a la the familiar metaphor about 
the finger pointing at the moon?

I'm asking you a lot of questions which are best answered by my going
to the library and re-reading for myself, of course.

>>I agree entirely. But this recovery is more art than science. "Fulness" is 
>>subjective. "Proving" that your reading of the TTC is better than Joe
>>NewAger's is analogous to "proving" that Sophocles is better than Stephen
>>King. Sophocles *is* better than Stephen King, but all the reasons are
>>ultimately subjective.
>
>No they are dependent on the audience/community to which appeals of proof
>are being made. 

It looks as if I chose the word "subjective" poorly, since in retrospect
I would have thought it to include this sort of dependence. In fact it 
sounds to me like you are saying back to me everything that I said! I
can't understand why there is a No at the beginning of the sentence! The
community of language-users determines validity ...

> ... But since the "better"
>reading is not ultimately determined by any one community once and for all,
>such persuasive exercises do not exhaust the 'meanings' of the text, nor do
>they set the standard; nor are their presuppositions "ultimately
>subjective." They are intersubjective embodied theories; in fact it is the
>presupposing of such theories that makes an aggregate of individuals a
>community in the first place. That communities, like individuals, are
>frequently myopic or blind to 'meanings' that do not justify and reinforce
>the presuppositions they already hold, is no reason to reduce the meaning
>of any text to their myopia. It is precisely because the meaning/context of
>the text is larger than any particular community that it can be perpetually
>reread in novel ways. And because its context imposes restrictions on the
>full possibilities that its words (structure) may suggest to uninformed
>readers willing to take whatever liberty they can get away with, there are
>readings which are more accurate than others. 

You speak as if you have access to some privileged context outside of 
any of these communities. Do you intend to imply this? Do you consider
there to be a qualitative difference between the community of researchers
in your field and the particular communities you mention, or merely a 
quantitative one, or none at all?

>Recovering context is not only art AND science, but a lot of work, too.

Oh, I'm convinced of that. Please don't think that I'm disrespecting your
erudition and labors! I bow to your specialized knowledge and thank you
once again for sharing it so freely.

>On what basis can you disagree with anything (except by intimidation from
>the majority)?

The impulse to agree or disagree just pops into my head, and then I 
try to form an argument that will be acceptable to my auditor. Isn't
everybody like that?

>Dan Lusthaus

        Tom Price  | heaven and earth regard the 10,000    | [email-masked]
****************** | things as straw dogs, baby  -- TTC    | ******************

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 02:46:19 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: (Was Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu)

>Chuang Tzu here seems to be telling us how to establish our value system.
>I'm not convinced that he's saying anything at all about linguistic theory.

>Are these _all_ meanings -- is this a general statement about language -- 
>or is this CT's take on mystical insight, a la the familiar metaphor about 
>the finger pointing at the moon?
>
>I'm asking you a lot of questions which are best answered by my going
>to the library and re-reading for myself, of course.

Your last sentence answered your own questions. For Chuang Tzu value
systems are intrinsically connected with language and language systems. He
is not talking about "mystical insight" but about language. That passage
(trap=>meaning, etc.) is one of the most quoted passages throughout Chinese
literature.

>You speak as if you have access to some privileged context outside of 
>any of these communities. Do you intend to imply this? Do you consider
>there to be a qualitative difference between the community of researchers
>in your field and the particular communities you mention, or merely a 
>quantitative one, or none at all?

I repeat the last sentence to which you were responding:
>>And because its context imposes restrictions on the
>>full possibilities that its words (structure) may suggest to uninformed
>>readers willing to take whatever liberty they can get away with, there are
>>readings which are more accurate than others.

>>On what basis can you disagree with anything (except by intimidation from
>>the majority)?
>
>The impulse to agree or disagree just pops into my head, and then I 
>try to form an argument that will be acceptable to my auditor. Isn't
>everybody like that?

In the relativized world you are advocating you have no grounds (popping or
otherwise) to disagree with anything.

        But it is obvious that our colleagues are losing (or have lost)
interest in this discussion. That no one else has suggested Chuang Tzu's
discussion of use/useless in the context of the "use" criterion, or
commented on the irony that people (not necessarily just Peter) who are
undermining their own ability to differentiate "right" readings from
"wrong" readings are accusing me of misreading or talking past their
messages - suggests either (1) no one is reading this, (2) no one cares, or
(3) no one knows anything about Chuang Tzu. Since there are plenty of
people on this list who do not fit the description of 3, it seems
reasonable to assume the case must be (1) or (2). In any event, it's time
to give this discussion a rest. What to you say, guys?

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 02:46:25 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu

>Not _the_ meaning. _A_ meaning. Media scholars and deconstructionists
>can demonstrate a cornucopia of meanings from any text, by specialising
>it with various contexts. What you are asking is which meaning is the
>most productive, not which is the most correct..

I am not asking about productivity, but contextual meaning. 

> I don't know of an
>objective way to judge that, and I doubt that there is one

That's why I find the use criterion uninteresting and useless.

>>"(if) Tao(s) is/(are) able to (be) Tao(-ed), (then they) are not always
>>Tao(s)." 
>
>Indeed, this is just the reading suggested in Alan Watts' "The
>Watercourse Way"; the meaning elicited from it there is that Tao cannot
>be expressed by anything but Tao. This is rather Godelian I think.
>Knowledge cannot capture Tao and sensation cannot convey it - sensation
>is transmitted by it, and knowledge is a map of it, but Tao is beyond
>experience. However you seek to represent it is, in a Godelian sense,
>incomplete or inconsistent.
>
>So I should describe Tao as ineffable.

That may be what Watts says, but that's not what I said (nor what my
translation said). But then, your misreading is just as legitimate as what
I meant??!

>This is quite like your peasant farmer example; the meanings that are received
>by the reader are the meanings they prefer to accept. They have recovered
>what you judge to be inferior uses of the text - but who is to say which
>use is absolutely superior?

Obviously in this discussion, that honor has been deferred to me. It's
because you have no way of explaining to her that she is "wrong" that I
find your supposed criteria for reading uninteresting and useless.
        To build one's key argument about a text on a criticism of a
feature that is not in the text (e.g., male pronouns) is simply wrong. - it
has nothing to do with inferior/superior or absolutes. Q.E.D.

What do you say we move on to the next topic?

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

From: [email-masked]
To: DanLusthaus <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (Was Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu) 
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 13:01:44 -0400

Conclusion: I'll summarize what I think we've accomplished and that
will be my final word in this very enjoyable thread.

Two questions were ongoing. The first had to do with the relationship 
between knowledge of the Tao and language use. It was not much resolved,
but ended with Dan's comment:

>For Chuang Tzu value systems are intrinsically connected with language 
>and language systems. (In CT 17) He is not talking about "mystical insight" 
>but about language. That passage (trap=>meaning, etc.) is one of the most 
>quoted passages throughout Chinese literature.

The second question had to do with the "recovery of context" or "on 
what basis do we disparage fluffy New Age pop Taoism", for instance.

Dan
>>And because its context imposes restrictions on the
>>full possibilities that its words (structure) may suggest to uninformed
>>readers willing to take whatever liberty they can get away with, there are
>>readings which are more accurate than others.

"More accurate" ... according to the criteria and values of Dan's community.
I assert that the choice to belong to any community (or, in other words,
to use any particular set of criteria and values) is arbitrary and cannot 
be rationally grounded, (although it can be bolstered by a posteriori 
arguments which have rational form.) Once the choice is made, arguments
and analysis follow whatever procedural rules have been chosen. In practise
therefore no general statements can be made and one can speak directly only
to members of one's own community. 

If I understand correctly, Dan disagrees and simply asserts that criteria 
and values are not completely arbitrary. "More accurate", period.

The question remains open: which of these positions is more appropriately 
Taoist, if either, or both? An answer to that depends on a conclusive answer 
to the first question, which we weren't able to come up with in the course 
of the thread. If anybody has any further ideas, please send me email.

        Tom Price  | heaven and earth regard the 10,000    | [email-masked]
****************** | things as straw dogs, baby  -- TTC    | ******************

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1993 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Lao-tzu and gender
To: [email-masked]

A quick note about this remark by Dan Lusthaus:

   Chinese is particularly interesting in this regard because 
   it is a case of an absolutely gender-neutral language that 
   nontheless accompanied a thoroughly sexist conception of the 
   socio-political order. That perhaps throws the project of 
   neutering English as a means of battling sexism into doubt. 
   Agreed, Confucians "implied" 'man' when the character ren was 
   used.  But with LT's emphasis on yin rather than yang ... {etc}

This opens some very interesting lines of reflection, including some
about the transformation of Lao-tzu's attention to yin into the
preference for yang in later traditions that still take the 
_Tao Te Ching_ as a core text.

I have wondered about issues like this ever since I first started
studying Chinese and found that modern Chinese had been modernized
by, among other things, the introduction of gender-marked personal
pronouns (but only the written forms!).  (There is also the corres-
ponding almost random use of "he" and "she," no doubt complicated
by phonetic problems, among many native speakers of Chinese who come
late to English.)

But classical texts do have a wide range of words used as pronouns, 
do they not (though not like the situation in Japanese, where there 
is no grammatical gender but a great difference between male and 
female language), some marked for femaleness?  Another way of seeing 
this would be to say that pronouns are marked not for maleness or 
femaleness, but for subordination, authority, deference, and so on.

But that leads to the question:  perhaps the "sexism" of that period
could better be regarded not as an ideology of subordination according
to sex, but an ideology of subordination per se, of which subordination
according to sex was secondary along with, and perhaps not more salient
than, subordination according to any number of characteristics?

I raise the possibility as a purely speculative point, and would
be happy to be corrected on it -- but if it has any plausibility,
wouldn't it again suggest things about the context within which
Lao-tzu is working?

And why (by the way) didn't they (the modernizers) simply use some
of the older or dialectal pronouns for gender-marked pronouns,
instead of inventing several written variations?

LeGrand Cinq-Mars
[email-masked]

just curious

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 13:49:37 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Subject: Final comment

>Dan
>>>And because its context imposes restrictions on the
>>>full possibilities that its words (structure) may suggest to uninformed
>>>readers willing to take whatever liberty they can get away with, there are
>>>readings which are more accurate than others.
>
>"More accurate" ... according to the criteria and values of Dan's community.
>I assert that the choice to belong to any community (or, in other words,
>to use any particular set of criteria and values) is arbitrary and cannot 
>be rationally grounded, (although it can be bolstered by a posteriori 
>arguments which have rational form.) Once the choice is made, arguments
>and analysis follow whatever procedural rules have been chosen. In practise
>therefore no general statements can be made and one can speak directly only
>to members of one's own community. 

There would be arbitrariness were it not for history. Things haven't all
happened at the same time, equally. Some things happened before others, and
there is an historical chain (actually multiple historical chains) that
precedes and develops after a text. Unless you think Lao Tzu et al. wrote
in an historical vacuum, the degree to which one takes account of these
chains is the degree to which one's reading is not arbitrary. There are
also philosophical and philological criteria, and these are need also be
tempered by historical knowledge.
        Pretend reading a text is actually doing forensic medicine to
discover the cause and perpetrator of a murder. You'll quickly discover
some things are not arbitrary nor all simply communal standards. Lo and
behold, "facts" appear!

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

From: Peter Alexander Merel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Lao Tzu
To: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 15:29:10 EST

Dan writes:
>Peter offers an example of his use criterion:
>>[...]
>
>Since to address this specific example - one which presupposes that
>mathematical objects are universal, eternal, exist in-themselves prior to
>the discovery of any theoretician or student, have a life (or essence) of
>their own apart from any empirical applications, etc. - would require
>taking on that notion of mathematical objects, which would require a
>lengthy exposition, let me reply instead with a counter example.

Mathematical objects are neither universal, eternal, nor can they exist 
apriori. They are abstractions that are invented by men as a language. 
The popular variety of arithmetic that we use to tot up the bill in a 
restaurant is only one of many possible arithmetics; such things are known
in mathematics as formal systems.

Up until the early part of this century it was believed that, as you
suggest, mathematics can be completely and consistently derived from
a small set of empirically based symmetries, and mathematical
relativism was thought to be rather peculiar. The ultimate flower of
this brand of objectivism was to have been Russell and Whitehead's
'Principia Mathematica' - a massive undertaking that sought to embrace
all of mathematics in a single symmetrical formalism.

It was Kurt Godel who scuppered this enterprise; his 'Incompleteness
Theorem' demonstrated that _any_ formal system as powerful as basic
arithmetic is, by its very nature, either inconsistent or incomplete. 
He did this by inventing an algorithm by which, given any formal system,
a statement could be constructed such that that formal system could not 
determine the truth or falsity of that statement.

It is now commonly accepted that mathematics is language, in no way 
distinguished from other language except by its rigour.

>        Did I and my fellow farmers understand the "meaning" of the text?
>Would Mao think so? Would most analysts of the situation? Is Mao and his
>book to be disgarded as useless and dangerous, or was the danger perhaps in
>the criteria I used or failed to use in my reading?

Not _the_ meaning. _A_ meaning. Media scholars and deconstructionists
can demonstrate a cornucopia of meanings from any text, by specialising
it with various contexts. What you are asking is which meaning is the
most productive, not which is the most correct. I don't know of an
objective way to judge that, and I doubt that there is one.

>>The tao being ineffable, how can you 'recover' it?
>
>Tao is not ineffable. 
>[...]
>The first line [of the ttc] should not be translated as everyone does,
>but literally says:
>"(if) Tao(s) is/(are) able to (be) Tao(-ed), (then they) are not always
>Tao(s)." 

Indeed, this is just the reading suggested in Alan Watts' "The
Watercourse Way"; the meaning elicited from it there is that Tao cannot
be expressed by anything but Tao. This is rather Godelian I think.
Knowledge cannot capture Tao and sensation cannot convey it - sensation
is transmitted by it, and knowledge is a map of it, but Tao is beyond
experience. However you seek to represent it is, in a Godelian sense,
incomplete or inconsistent.

So I should describe Tao as ineffable.

>[...] While reading ttc (in English) she complained repeatedly about
>the sage being a "him." I repeatedly told her that there were no gendered
>pronouns in Chinese at all, and that usually no pronoun at all appears, all
>the "he(s)" and "him(s)" had been provided by the translator to make the
>text readible in English. The poor student would pause for a second and
>then continue the same point. Unfortunately for her the only "use" any old
>text was allowed to provide was an exemplification of the evil sexism that
>she and her contemporaries were on a crusade to stamp out. Sadly, she
>missed all the feminine (if not feminist) imagery and ideology of ttc. Put
>another way, to her, either ttc really did have masculine pronouns or else
>it was useless.

This is quite like your peasant farmer example; the meanings that are received
by the reader are the meanings they prefer to accept. They have recovered
what you judge to be inferior uses of the text - but who is to say which
use is absolutely superior?

--
Internet: [email-masked]          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 01:52:19 -0400
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Confucian Taoism

LeGrand asks:
>  If I'm reading a quotation from
>the Tao Te Ching in an alchemical text, am I reading a different
>text than I am if I read it in a boxing manual?

The answer is yes. Not only that, but the same phrase (e.g., a phrase in
the ttc) would be read and translated completely differently if it had
appeared in the Lunyu (confucian Analects). For instance, James Legge's
translations of ttc and Chuang Tzu are abhorrently out of tune with Taoist
thought, but a comparison against the Chinese originals shows that he
proceeded carefully and methodically, and produced an English version that
"encodes" the Chinese in a fairly consistent and rigorous manner. The
problem was he was used to translating Confucian texts, and his informants
had taught him to rely on a Chu-hsi-like interpretation of terms and
concepts. He translated the taoist texts as if they were Confucian texts,
and all English readers can check to see the results.
        It is for this reason that earlier I was resistant to the facile
retrospective reading of pre-Han literature as a figura for later Taoist
ideas; it is very easy to read inappropriate contexts back into texts. All
the traditions are using the same key terms, many of the same key phrases,
but they don't mean the same things by them (e.g., Tao, wu-wei, etc.).

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Chuang tzu philosophy
Date: Tue,  7 Sep 93 00:17:47 PDT

>.... you make a sarcastic remark about me and ch 17 ....
that remark what ever it was was supposed to try and get you to see that
you yourself take material not from the "inner chapters" as part of CT
philosophy; it was meant to be ironic not sarcastic sorry.

>Is there a CT philosophy apart from the so-called "authentic passages"?
Yes, i'd hope so. For me, there is the material (probably) written by
one Chuang Chou. then, there are passages written by "followers" in keeping
with what chou (joe) said. I don't think one can separate these two at
this time--short of an archelogical find or some fancy hermeneutics. third,
there is other material in the CT text which can be and has been interpreted
from the CT philosophy perspective. Fourth, there is material in other texts
,like the Huainantzu "yuan tao", Kuo Hsiang's commentary which "fits" the
CT philo. perspective. yes, I accept ACG's stratification in part, but I
also feel that non-CT passages can be read in the light of CT philosophy, e.g
the story of the farmer who waters his fields by hand maybe that story
is Primitivist or Agriculturalist but i think one can and it has been used
in a CT manner.

>Is CT "philosophy" something distinct from CT the writer? 
Well yes and no. the man is not the philosophy and the philosophy is not the
man. let's say joe the man was the first one to write CT philosophy, but
then that philosophy became bigger than joe; "followers" also wrote CT
philosophy. you know kind of like with Plato, not all the material in the Dia
dialogues was written by Plato nor all the "ideas" associated with Platoism
were thought by Plato but its still called Platonism.

>Do the various hands you believe had a part in the text all share the same
>philosophy (CT's philosophy)?
Well, of course not. there is all kinds of "stuff" in that book, but what 
preplexes me is why was it put under one title. Is it just some interesting
literature that some one wanted to preserve and thought it would survive
(best) under the CT title, was someone trying to discredit CT philosophy
and put a bunch of stuff in it to make it look less credible, or was
it intended to be read in the light of CT perpsective? I do not know. For som
reason i like the last option.

>Or is Ct's philosophy the aggregate of .... Kuo Hsiang's editing?
no, of course not. But what is all that other material doing under the
title? and maybe just maybe KH left out something important, something
that for example only you could have identified as CT philosophy, but now
its lost.
>Could you clarify it (your position)?
Probably not, I was/am hoping Hal Roth would do that!!!

PS. I've had this idea for some time now that the most important aspect of
CT's philosophy is not stated in the text at all that it is hinted at or
pointed at in the jokes, humor, stories, etc.  Also the idea of having
a perspective seems to be important for CT philosophy and that there are
many perspectives, possibily many CT philosophy perspectives. I guess that 
is why i think one can read anything from the CT view point and get CT 
philosophy out of it! Thinking of the material in Ch. 2 especially toward
the end: If we disagree on what the CT philosophy is, who can settle the
disagrement?
jim

From: Peter Alexander Merel <[email-masked]>
Subject: When was Lao Tse? (Was Re: Final comment)
To: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 21:31:56 EST

Dan writes:
>There would be arbitrariness were it not for history. Things haven't all
>happened at the same time, equally. Some things happened before others, and
>there is an historical chain (actually multiple historical chains) that
>precedes and develops after a text. Unless you think Lao Tzu et al. wrote
>in an historical vacuum, the degree to which one takes account of these
>chains is the degree to which one's reading is not arbitrary. There are
>also philosophical and philological criteria, and these are need also be
>tempered by historical knowledge.

If there was a way to pinpoint Lao Tse in history, then this would be
quite useful. Last I heard, there was no evidence that placed him at
a particular time - I've read accounts suggesting that LT was a creation
of Chuang Tse, and I've read accounts suggesting that he was a contemporary
of Confucius, and I've read accounts suggesting he preceded Confucius, and
I've read accounts suggesting that he did not exist at all, that the ttc
was a collection of epigrams sharing a theme that derived from numerous
authors and/or oral traditions. I'd infer different contexts from each of
these possibilities. Is there any good evidence of when and where the ttc
was written?

>        Pretend reading a text is actually doing forensic medicine to
>discover the cause and perpetrator of a murder. You'll quickly discover
>some things are not arbitrary nor all simply communal standards. Lo and
>behold, "facts" appear!

Pretend reading a text is actually following a score with a variety of 
instruments of different tunings. You'll quickly discover that some parts
are not harmonious at all even when every instrument plays flawlessly. Lo
and behold, "cacophony" appears!

--
Internet: [email-masked]          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 17:06:15 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (DanLusthaus)

>>I am not asking about productivity, but contextual meaning. 
>
>You aren't? But you choose the context that is most productive as _the_ 
>context, don't you? Is that coincidence?

The most "productive" context - at the moment - would be NewAge; I could
"produce" a dozen or more books on the secret teachings of Lao Tzu, Better
Healing through Taoist Crystals, channel another 19 chapters (that would
round the book off to 100 chapters), and explain why Jesus, Mohammed, Ralph
Nader and Pillsbury Dough Boy have all been broadcasting the same message
since before the Earth cooled (the doughboy has mastered the art of
yielding with a giggle!).
        So, "no", I wasn't touting Productive contexts, only *accurate* ones.

>I am quite interested in what you mean by your translation

Check my article in JCP mentioned in the earlier posting.

>Other chapters seem to me to be even more heavily in support of such a
>notion [ineffability]; I can't see how you could read ttc chapter 14 and not
>come away
>with this idea.

"Looking at (something), not seeing, *IS CALLED* (ming yue: literally 'name
is-said') yi..."
In my dictionary ineffability means you can't call it anything.

>I think that my response to the young lady would not be to say that she
>was wrong, but to suggest to her that the text admits of other meanings
>that she might find useful. I'd then seduce her towards my understanding 
>of the text by dangling the carrot of feminist appropriation of taoism, 
>without giving her an opportunity to become affronted by my understanding
>of "femininity".

In today's climate, if you dangle your carrot in front of a female student,
you'll be up on sexual harrassment charges. In my classes I make a great
deal about the feminine elements in Lao Tzu; the point of my example was
that, even though she begrudgingly acknowledged Lao Tzu was not as sexist
as some other ancient literature, it still had those sexist pronouns -
despite the fact that I continuously assured her that there were very few
pronouns at all in the Chinese text, and that Chinese has absolutely no
gendered pronouns. The fact is she was WRONG (try saying that word, it
doesn't cause cavities). Her ideas were founded on an *erroneous*
assumption.

>>What do you say we move on to the next topic?
>
>Oh, by all means, let's. I had hoped you might pick up on the parallels
>I was drawing between Godel and Lao Tse, but I'm content to follow
>whatever interests folks.

I'm not sure Lao Tzu had much to offer mathematical theory. He has
difficulty counting over three (occasionally five occurs), and becomes
extremely vague between three and 10,000. Since Tao produces One, One
produces two, etc., Godol wouldn't surprise him.

>teh [...] the
>intersection of impartiality and compassion, acceptance and restraint,

Why frame it in moral-quality terms? The closest thing in Western discourse
to te is Spinoza's term (in Latin) conatus, defined and examined in book 3
of his Ethics. It is also closely allied with Nietzsche's notion of "power"
and "noble" (which he got from the ancient Greeks who were using it in ways
similar to its uses in Ancient China; cf. Genealogy of Morals, pt. 1).

Dan Lusthaus
[email-masked]
Bates College

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 8:41:00 CST
From: Nrs2460 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A question of food - Reply
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: OR

Dear Don Asbestos Suit...er, Pierre, Stephen, and Tao Friends -

Stephen, as to your question about whether Taoism is candy or
medicine, I would suggest a third alternative - it is
nourishment.  I refer to D.C. Lau's translation of the TTC, p.
77, ch. 20:  "I alone am different from others / And value being
fed by the mother."

Perhaps it is the satisfaction of receiving real food for thought
which has been somewhat missing from this discussion so far.  I
have seen the academic mind-candy aspect in a number of posts
(and too much will make me sick, I fear) and also the rather
stern medicinal flavor of "If it's hard to do or think about, it
must be good for you."  Neither taste seems to conform to the
nourishment of the Tao.  There's something about a nicely Taoist
discussion which makes one drowsy, as if after a large meal, and
also with one's restless mental questioning lulled into
satisfaction.

Well, this is just my metaphor, (as accurate as I can make it for
Dan's sake :-))  And by the way, Pierre, I phound Phideux.  And
also, Tom - I got lost in the literature discussion.  I would
certainly agree that writing a novel is different from
translating the TTC, but I would not describe _Island_ as a
Taoist novel, as much as I enjoy Huxley.  (I find a certain
ascetic vitamin deficiency in many Vedanta-based
thought-systems.)  Did I miss something while dozing?

And what's all this about Dan's mythological wife and "babes"? 
If I had know this was a Tao-based dating service for males, I
wouldn't have joined.... ;-)

Your friend,

Nancy Smith
[email-masked]

From [email-masked] Mon Sep 13 19:44:41 1993
From: Peter Alexander Merel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Food for thought.
To: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 9:29:39 EST
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: OR

Nancy writes:

>Perhaps it is the satisfaction of receiving real food for thought
>which has been somewhat missing from this discussion so far.  I
>have seen the academic mind-candy aspect in a number of posts
>(and too much will make me sick, I fear) and also the rather
>stern medicinal flavor of "If it's hard to do or think about, it
>must be good for you."  Neither taste seems to conform to the
>nourishment of the Tao.  There's something about a nicely Taoist
>discussion which makes one drowsy, as if after a large meal, and
>also with one's restless mental questioning lulled into
>satisfaction.

That sounds lovely. I'd like to continue on in this vein a little. If
Teh is natural life, grace, contentment, acceptance, etc. then Tao is 
in both the nourishment and the excretion of Teh - the breathing in and 
the breathing out. Breathing out, excreting, we provide nature with the
substance it needs to continue, and to continue nourishing us. We do not 
need to intend to breathe; breath cannot be saved up and it cannot accrue
interest.

So it can be with fruitful discussions. Each person supplies a viewpoint
the other needs to develop their own. If no one intends to push a point,
but just speaks naturally, describing what they see, then the conversation
flows and takes on a life of its own. Good discussion can leave you buzzing 
with delight, and stay with you for your whole life.

But too often someone takes offence or speaks from bias or clams up, and 
conversations run off the rails; running off the rails they end abruptly,
leaving unresolved questions and disputes. This is why acceptance, restraint
and compassion are touted by Lao Tse - by using these things you avoid the
pitfalls that abound in human discourse, and help yourself and others in
to find what is needed.

>Well, this is just my metaphor, (as accurate as I can make it for
>Dan's sake :-))  And by the way, Pierre, I phound Phideux.  And
>also, Tom - I got lost in the literature discussion.  I would
>certainly agree that writing a novel is different from
>translating the TTC, but I would not describe _Island_ as a
>Taoist novel, as much as I enjoy Huxley.  (I find a certain
>ascetic vitamin deficiency in many Vedanta-based
>thought-systems.)  Did I miss something while dozing?

Interesting - I haven't read Island for a long time. I must dig it out
and give it a look. I was quite serious in reply to Tom - I would like
to write a novel based along Taoist lines. My first thought was to take
my ttc and provide an opposing view, or a number of opposing views, embody
them in characters, and set them in motion in some well defined environment,
showing them developing into taoists by trial and error. 

Hey, and I'll call it taoism-l :-)

>And what's all this about Dan's mythological wife and "babes"? 
>If I had know this was a Tao-based dating service for males, I
>wouldn't have joined.... ;-)

Dan has a mythological wife? Um, Bast, perhaps? :-) I confess, I was reading
Neil Gaiman's 'Season of Mists' Sandman story, where Lucifer resigns and 
gives the key to Hell to the Lord of Dream, and a number of mythological types 
come along petitioning him for it, and I was sorry to see there were no taoist
sages among them ... and I was wondering: does anyone know of any taoist 
fiction outside of Charles G Finney's 'The Circus Of Doctor Lao'? Finney
is excellent and lovely to read to children - I guess the Pooh books have been
called taoist - does anyone dissent about that? Anyone know of other modern
works they'd call 'taoist'?

--
Internet: [email-masked]          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |

From [email-masked] Mon Sep 13 20:12:27 1993
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Taoism in novels
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: OR

Other than Finney's _Circus_?  Something close can be found in the
pleasant Chinoiserie of Barry Hughart's _Bridge of Birds_ (and the
sequel, the name of which I don't remember).  There are some earlier
novels in which Taoism (or "Taoism") is used as a plot gimmick, but
the details are at best vague right now.

Did van Gulik have a temple-full of rascally Taoist monks as villains?
Or were they rascally Buddhist monks?  

Has anyone ever done English-language fiction about contemporary
Taoism?  Fiction about the modern Chinese religious scene could be
at leats as much fun as anything by Umberto Eco.

LeGrand Cinq-Mars
[email-masked]

From [email-masked] Tue Sep 14 07:43:13 1993
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked]
Subject: tao and perspectival approach
Lines: 28
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 23:47:20 PDT
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: OR

Isn't that "relativism" discussion getting too violent?

It didn't hold my attention so i can't recall how it got started; was
someone proposing that "taoism" is relativism? Doesn't relativism
go hand in hand with absolutism? are not both missing in early chinese
philosophy?

Personally what feeds me is reading Lao tzu and Chuang tzu, especially
Chuang tzu as taking a perspectival approach. since I don't see system
building or systematic philosophy at work there, i don't like to call it
perspectivism, there is no "ism" system to it, for me. Are not Lao and
Chuang proposing that:  "things" look different and different "things" are
seen from various perspectives, that one gets locked in to one perspective
and one starts excluding other perspectives; that one can get into the
light of heaven (tian zhi ming) or use light/clarity/illumination (ming)
and see one's own perspective as "a" perspective and also see from other
perspectives. (this is where some shaman idea comes in--the human can take
on other animal "forms" and see the world as they (other animals) see it.

R. Roty pointed out that no one (he meant philosophers) was a pure 
relativist.
Socrates pointed out the self-referntial problem of relativism. ie if one 
says that "truth is relative" then is that statement relative or absolutely
true; if it is relative, then why believe it; if it is absolutely true, then
there may be other absolute truths.  of course Socrates was an absolutist.
BUT, its my linited understanding that relativism as a philosophical position
is not in early pre-Ch'in philosophy as a philosophical position.
jim

From [email-masked] Tue Sep 14 14:21:43 1993
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 13:12:04 CDT
From: yoo-hang hugh kim <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Taoist Fiction
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: OR

 Peter Alexander Merel <[email-masked]>:
>Anyone know of other modern works they'd call 'taoist'?

 LeGrand Cinq-Mars [email-masked]:
>Has anyone ever done English-language fiction about contemporary Taoism?

	I'd like to recommend with great enthusiasm a trilogy 
by Deng Ming-Dao:
		_The Wandering Taoist_
		_Seven Bamboo Tablets On A Cloudy Satchel_
		_Gateway to a Vast World_	
	
	They were published during the last five years by Harper
Court (?), San Francisco. These books are biographical novels based on
the life of Deng's Taoist teacher, Kwan Saihung, who was a member of
the Hua-Shan Taoist sect in China during the early part of the century
before the Communists moved in. They have good accounts of Taoist
monastic life in Hua-Shan (one of the five sacred Taoist mountains in
China), philosophy as lived by the recluse Taoists, and Taoist training
involving everything from meditation, learning the Classics, martial
arts, herbs, etc. Personally, I found them to be much more than
stories about a Taoist recluse. The novels are very genuine and awe-inspiring. 

Hugh K.