Is Confucianism on the rise in China?
shazi
chinese thought many years ago (1970s),
I took trips to southern China (1980s)
to find Taoist and Buddhist temples.
except for within hong kong, and taiwan,
i found very little remained of the
chinese religious and philosophical
heritage.
as i later (early 90's) worked with
my colleagues from the university of
beijing, i found few of them to be
conversant or interested in chinese
philosophical dialogue.
this isn't a criticism but the legacy
of the cultural revolution seemed to
cast aside the 'traditional ways'.
now, many of my mainland colleagues are
rediscovering classical chinese thought.
to me it is quite exciting, but their
ability to read and understand classical
chinese is limited, by both the lack
of formal education in the classical
writings, as well as the change to the
simplified characters, which limits the
corpus of commentary readable by the
general public.
yet, classical chinese thought, specifically,
rujia and daojia, are, imo, the core
unique and native thought to china:
a legacy to the world with wide-ranging
significance.
In addition, rujia/confucianism often is
considered the 'soul' of the chinese,
but in saying this, that soul is hiddden
inside without, as kongzi would say,
'an investigation of things'.
is confucianism on the rise?
as the master said,
"Is it not pleasant to learn with a
constant perseverance and application?
Is it not delightful to have friends
coming from distant quarters?"
(lunyu 1:1, legge)
what easier place to have friends from
'distant quarters' than usenet?
-shazi
------------
please ask your newsgroup provider to add
alt.philosophy.confucianism! thanks.
ltlee1
> when i first became acquainted with
> chinese thought many years ago (1970s),
> I took trips to southern China (1980s)
> to find Taoist and Buddhist temples.
>
> except for within hong kong, and taiwan,
> i found very little remained of the
> chinese religious and philosophical
> heritage.
>
> as i later (early 90's) worked with
> my colleagues from the university of
> beijing, i found few of them to be
> conversant or interested in chinese
> philosophical dialogue.
Being a confucian is about how to live one life such as how to see
human relationship, religion and etc. In this sense, Chinese is always
confucius. In addition, confucianism has been mainstream in China for
so long, a lot of confucisan percepts have been diffused to the lowest
level. For example, "Dao" and "Li", the Chinese translation of "reason"
are big words philosophically speaking. But 6 years olds also utter
them. If one pays attention to a six years old's "dao li", may be he
can contruct some philosophical meaning. As Menzi had said,"Dao is not
far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
rst0...@yahoo.com
Confucius teaching tie China and the Chinese people to the past. We
had 2,500 more years of experience beyond Confucius. Let's leave
Confucius to the history book, and study Confucius as it was, history
and nothing more. We have better ideas, better ways of doing things
than 2,500 years ago.
rst0...@yahoo.com
ltlee1 wrote:
> shazi wrote:
> > when i first became acquainted with
> > chinese thought many years ago (1970s),
> > I took trips to southern China (1980s)
> > to find Taoist and Buddhist temples.
> >
> > except for within hong kong, and taiwan,
> > i found very little remained of the
> > chinese religious and philosophical
> > heritage.
> >
> > as i later (early 90's) worked with
> > my colleagues from the university of
> > beijing, i found few of them to be
> > conversant or interested in chinese
> > philosophical dialogue.
>
> Being a confucian is about how to live one life such as how to see
> human relationship, religion and etc. In this sense, Chinese is always
> confucius.
And that is why China has been at the bottom of the pile for so long,
Confucius teaching tie China and the Chinese people to the past.
Forget about Confucius. His teaching is 2,500 years old. Have we
learned nothing more the past 2,500 years? Leave Confucius in the
history book, study it as history and nothing more. We have better
ideas, better ways of doing things.
demor...@aol.com
Like communism and the People's Democratic Dictatorship?
don_t...@hotmail.com
demor...@aol.com 寫道：
At the least the Chinese women are enjoying more rights than they ever
had through past history of China. Something that Confucius himself
would have never dare to thought in his deepest wildest dream.
dunbother
Very true. To hell with Johnny Kung!
>
>>
>> as the master said,
>> "Is it not pleasant to learn with a
>> constant perseverance and application?
>> Is it not delightful to have friends
>> coming from distant quarters?"
>> (lunyu 1:1, legge)
>>
>> what easier place to have friends from
>> 'distant quarters' than usenet?
>>
>> -shazi
>> ------------
>> please ask your newsgroup provider to add
>> alt.philosophy.confucianism! thanks.
Anyway, in my books, communism and socialism far better than
cuntfusionism anyway...Bloody backward crap!
lechergod
imperalism under confusism.
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Confucius teaching tie China and the Chinese people to the past. We
> had 2,500 more years of experience beyond Confucius. Let's leave
> Confucius to the history book, and study Confucius as it was, history
> and nothing more. We have better ideas, better ways of doing things
> than 2,500 years ago.
>
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to ne...@netfront.net
lechergod
and the prosperous sex services in Kwantang !!!
such services just in one province marked up the whole nation's GDP by 10%
!!!!!!!!!
as yet it is only one province make the disclosure !!!!
don_t...@hotmail.com wrote:
---
lechergod
confuscian can !!!!!
dunbother wrote:
---
shazi
>ltlee1 wrote:
>> Being a confucian is about how to live one life
>> such as how to see human relationship, religion
>> and etc. In this sense, Chinese is always confucius.
indeed.
>And that is why China has been at the bottom of the
>pile for so long, Confucius teaching tie China and
>the Chinese people to the past. Forget about Confucius.
bottom of the pile? in what respect?
>His teaching is 2,500 years old. Have we learned
>nothing more the past 2,500 years?
we have developed more efficient means
to kill people.
>Leave Confucius in the history book, study it as
>history and nothing more. We have better ideas,
>better ways of doing things.
to learn from history is to not repeat the
errors, and to make use of the successes.
there is much positive from confucianism.
there are many things in confucianism that
are dated. same with sunzi's bingfa (art of war).
2500 years ago, he outlined general strategies
to win war, including the idea that the
best strategy is to not fight at all, to
attack strategies. all true today. he
also had a lot of material that in our
modern technology of killing, is irrelevant.
the idea is to learn from the things that
relevant.
kongzi taught integrity, loyalty, and
forgiveness. these things have not been
made obsolete, as of yet. and these were
the core of his 'single thread'.
on the other hand, he also was bound within
the mores of his society of the time:
a lesser view of women, the notion of
a mandate from heaven that legitimizes
the ruler's will.
unfortunately over time, confucianism
became an excuse for locking in the past.
'zhong'/loyalty became the lock-in for
demanding obedience. mengzi's social
contract interpetation of kongzi, that
the ruler has the obligation to support
the people and the people have the obligation
to change the ruler if otherwise, was
conveniently forgotten. greed and self-
interest overcame the principles of the
humble and simple righteous leader.
>ltlee wrote:
>> In addition, confucianism has been
>> mainstream in China for so long, a lot
>> of confucisan percepts have been diffused
>> to the lowest level. For example, "Dao"
>> and "Li", the Chinese translation of "reason"
>> are big words philosophically speaking.
>> But 6 years olds also utter them. If one
>> pays attention to a six years old's "dao li",
>> may be he can contruct some philosophical meaning.
true. confucianism and its terminology became
the identifying characteristic, much like
christianity in the west. taken for granted,
it is like the water for the fish, so the
nature of confucianism is never really examined.
>> As Menzi had said,"Dao is not
>> far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
a pleasure to talk with you.
ltlee1
The above quote is from "the doctrine of the mean."
>
> a pleasure to talk with you.
ditto.
shazi
>> >> As Menzi had said,"Dao is not
>> >> far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
>The above quote is from "the doctrine of the mean."
thanks. i remember the quote, but
not the source.
>> a pleasure to talk with you.
>ditto.
come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
regards,
ltlee1
shazi wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As Menzi had said,"Dao is not
> >> >> far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
>
> >The above quote is from "the doctrine of the mean."
>
> thanks. i remember the quote, but
> not the source.
>
> >> a pleasure to talk with you.
>
> >ditto.
>
> come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
> started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
Can't access that from google.
rst0...@yahoo.com
> "rst0...@yahoo.com" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >ltlee1 wrote:
> >> Being a confucian is about how to live one life
> >> such as how to see human relationship, religion
> >> and etc. In this sense, Chinese is always confucius.
>
> indeed.
Yes, and I say again, Confucius teaching tie China and the Chinese
people to the past. Leave Confucius teaching to the history book and
study it as history. It was too bad that Qin ShiHuang Di didn't
succeed in burning all his books. Otherwise China might have more
better and successful history.
>
> >And that is why China has been at the bottom of the
> >pile for so long, Confucius teaching tie China and
> >the Chinese people to the past. Forget about Confucius.
>
> bottom of the pile? in what respect?
Haven't you learned anything about China's history throughout your
life? If you have to ask these questions, you have been sitting on the
highs of Confucius teaching and don't see anything bad. From the days
of the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongols didn't even trust the Chinese, and
killed half of the Chinese population. The country was controlled by
Mongols and foreigners, people like Marco Polo. In a short period of
time, the Ming Dynasty gained some respect during the time of Zhang
He's time. Ever since then, it's been nothing but downhill. There was
nothing to be proud of when a foreign country put up signs in China
itself that said "no dog or Chinese allowed". You don't think it's a
disgrace for a country put up exclusion laws restricting the Chinese
from entering a country? China itself was almost partitioned into
different pieces by foreign countries. If you don't see anything bad
about Confucius teaching, you haven't read any Chinese history since
the 1700's. The Chinese people were treated like animals throughout
the world. The Manchu made a mockery of the Chinese people by forcing
all Chinese to shave the forehead and wore a queue. It's a disgrace
for me even to watch Chinese movies showing that hair style today. If
you don't think these are not the bottom of the pile, you have no pride
in yourself.
>
> >His teaching is 2,500 years old. Have we learned
> >nothing more the past 2,500 years?
>
> we have developed more efficient means
> to kill people.
Killing had been done throughout history, the west as well as east.
During the warring states time, whole army, the whole state, including
women and children were killed. Since we have more efficient ways of
killing people, why not adapt more efficient ways to live than 2,500
year-old ideas?
>
> >Leave Confucius in the history book, study it as
> >history and nothing more. We have better ideas,
> >better ways of doing things.
>
> to learn from history is to not repeat the
> errors, and to make use of the successes.
Yes, that is why I said to leave Confucius to history and study it as
history, but not to live in history.
>
> there is much positive from confucianism.
> there are many things in confucianism that
> are dated.
Any Confucius teaching are dated. They are 2,500 years old. Learn
from it, improve from it, but don't live it.
> same with sunzi's bingfa (art of war).
> 2500 years ago, he outlined general strategies
> to win war, including the idea that the
> best strategy is to not fight at all, to
> attack strategies. all true today.
Learn from it and improve upon it. Learn from the experience of the
Vietnam war. Learn from the Insurgents in Iraq. They adapt from the
present situation to fight the present war.
> he
> also had a lot of material that in our
> modern technology of killing, is irrelevant.
No, everything is relevant. The idea is to learn from the past, and
improve it, make it better. Use better ideas, not to live in the past.
Every generation produce something better. Don't go back 2,500 years
to learn from Confucius.
>
> the idea is to learn from the things that
> relevant.
>
> kongzi taught integrity, loyalty, and
> forgiveness.
There have been thousands of people made these the rules to live on,
not only Confucius.
> these things have not been
> made obsolete, as of yet. and these were
> the core of his 'single thread'.
>
> on the other hand, he also was bound within
> the mores of his society of the time:
And this is the primary reason why I have so much objection to
Confucius teaching, tie China and the Chinese people to the past.
> a lesser view of women, the notion of
> a mandate from heaven that legitimizes
> the ruler's will.
Yes, we have modern views on these subjects.
>
> unfortunately over time, confucianism
> became an excuse for locking in the past.
Yes, my primary objection.
> 'zhong'/loyalty became the lock-in for
> demanding obedience.
Another objection, demand obedience. We have better ways of doing it.
> mengzi's social
> contract interpetation of kongzi, that
> the ruler has the obligation to support
> the people and the people have the obligation
> to change the ruler if otherwise, was
> conveniently forgotten. greed and self-
> interest overcame the principles of the
> humble and simple righteous leader.
We have better ways to deal beyond the above. These were the views of
the past.
rst0...@yahoo.com
>started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
It's a waste of time to talk about Confucius and his philosophy. Leave
it to history, and study it as history. Talk about today's philosophy,
not 2,500 year-old philosophy.
lechergod
as this communist dog picks out :
Yuan dynsaty from monoglia, refuse confucius,
as PRC from Russia, refuse confucious so long,
the cruelty is the same
as in Qing dynasty, foreigner prescribed a lot of rules against chinese.
why not adapt more efficient ways ???
this communist dog is dreaming to his saying to whom !!!
this communist dog asks them to be killed to adapt ....
leaving the killers communists untouched !!!!
that is why a communist dog !!!
this communist dog yells to learn , not to live,
but too blind to see, the communists spokesman are declaring to live in it.
how miserable this communist dog !!!
this communist dog yells too loud to learn from this from that,
what had this communist dog learned ?????
completely blank here !!!!!1
this communist dog yell to have better ways to deal,
but too obvious, this communist dog's better way is likely to be the
us$404/365-a-year, much worse than the 2500 years ago.
---
lechergod
1. yelling to learn from it, but command others not to talk.
2. that is the communists' dictatorship to ban others from doing this or
doing that !!!!
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
---
shazi
> > come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
> > started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
> Can't access that from google.
ah yes. then, please, contact google to ask
them to put it up. Unless enough people complain,
i'm not sure it will happen.
here's their process:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7919
thanks much!
PaPaPeng
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Confuciaism has been practiced in China for more than 2000 years. You
see it in action everyday. Unless you have something new to add or
want to do an academic paper the recommendation is don't waste your
time going over a path that has already been well troddeen.
lo yeeOn
It is a sad, sad, thoughtless, and arrogant statement. It does not
bode well for the future of China or humanity.
In those 2000+ years, confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
systematic thoughts, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
including Mother Nature. It thrived while China at the same time got
sicker and sicker by that weight of Confucianism.
I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
since May 4th 1918, have come to realize that what made them the butt
of the joke of the modern human civilization and the victims of
Japanese and western colonialism and imperialism was Confucianism.
I though the Chinese' ability to launch taikonauts into space was the
last nail to Confucius' coffin.
But I was surprised to hear such a cliche' spewn forth as
"Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
from the same mouth, as far as I can recall, which spewed forth such
a sophisticated concept as punctuated equilibria in connection with
the theory of evolution.
Academic theses on the subject of ethics are regularly churned out
from first class philosphy departments in American colleges. And I
can gurantee you that such a cliche as the `dao far'/`dao near' thing
cited above does not have a place in those theses. It does not for
the simple reason that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
China has been a sick patient for thousands of years and has barely
got out of bed recently for having taken the right course of medicine.
She is, however still full of deficiencies and weaknesses which can
give her an irreversible relapse. The deficiencies include but are
not limited to an excessive worship of money, a lack of environmental
consciousness, the individual's indifference toward the society in
which his or her family is a part of, a lack of finely-tuned legal
system which respect the sanctity of life and individual freedom, a
lack of a self-sufficient education system which produces world class
scientists which are needed to sustain her need, and a deficiency in
the awareness of the spiritual side of one's physical existence.
When one examines these issues one by one, one can see how the Indians
and the Japanese are presently far ahead of the Chinese in one area or
another. For this reason, Japan is far ahead and India has a lot more
potential to be ahead, of China.
It is in my opinion totally short-sighted to be too confident about
China' current economic success, which has been achieved at the
expense of many other values which have long term ramifications.
Chinese intellectuals recognized by the early 1900s the problems of
Confucianism. And in the past 100 years, an educated person was proud
to recognize this fact. Unfortunately that intellectual possession
has now been replaced by a call to return to Confucianism. What a
shame!
I fully endorse rst0wxyz's view. China's survival depends on the
total eradication of Confucianism in her society.
China faces a great deal of challenge in her quest to survive. One
needs to recognize the parallel between a country's survival to that
of a species. A species survives a catastrophe because it somehow
possesses a set of qualities which enables it to weather the effects
of the catastrophe. It may not be aware of it; but it's it that
evolution selects it instead of another strain. The challenges which
a modern country faces now is no longer the sticks and stones that
ancient China faced. The modern challenges which have their genesis
in the age of the colonial powers require a precise understanding of
the universe and all the other players which also inhabit in it.
Confucius was a conniving politician above all. His disciples such as
Mencius was an imprecise thinker at best.
When I see the name Confucius, I can't help but recall that scene from
Zhiang Yi-Mou's ``The Red Lanterns'' in which women conspired with men
to abuse and even murder other women while a bunch of servants of this
decaying old-money household readily executed their master/mistresses'
orders. ``What must be done will be done ...'', so said one of the
mistresses and all the thoughtless people complied.
Everything was all too reasonable to them, all too ``daoist'' to them
because that's what they knew. What they knew was Confucius' teaching
of hierarchy. That hierarchy is meant to pervade every cell in the
society. Everyone fits into a particular slot in that hierarchy. So,
it is all too reasonable for one at a hierarchical position to issue a
call to get rid of, or murder, someone at an inferior position.
It is horrible. This kind of horror was only legitimized for the
kings in other cultures. But for China, thanks to mr. Confucius, the
conniving politician, the horror was institutionalized to the max at
every level of the society and at every corner across the land.
Nay, Confucianism has no place for China or any society. Anyone who
advocates it for China wants China to die.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
It is a sad, sad, thoughtless, and arrogant statement. It does not
bode well for the future of China or humanity.
In those 2000+ years, confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
systematic thoughts, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight got
China to wilt away.
I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
since May 4th 1918, have come to realize that what made them the butt
of the joke of the modern human civilization and the victims of
Japanese and western colonialism and imperialism was Confucianism.
I though the Chinese' ability to launch taikonauts into space was the
last nail to Confucius' coffin.
But I was surprised to hear such a cliche' spewn forth as
"Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
from the same mouth, as far as I can recall, which spewed forth such
ltlee1
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <v185525rsobcrg9nh...@4ax.com>,
> PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 28 Apr 2006 09:33:42 -0700, "rst0...@yahoo.com"
> ><rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
> >>>started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
> >>
> >>It's a waste of time to talk about Confucius and his philosophy. Leave
> >>it to history, and study it as history. Talk about today's philosophy,
> >>not 2,500 year-old philosophy.
> >
> >Confuciaism has been practiced in China for more than 2000 years. You
> >see it in action everyday. Unless you have something new to add or
> >want to do an academic paper the recommendation is don't waste your
> >time going over a path that has already been well troddeen.
>
> It is a sad, sad, thoughtless, and arrogant statement. It does not
> bode well for the future of China or humanity.
>
> In those 2000+ years, confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
> for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
> members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
> systematic thoughts, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
> including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight got
> China to wilt away.
Confucianism does not cause the practice of bound feet for women. The
notion of supremacy for the male members in the family was universal.
Nor does it cause the stagnation of the society and the contempt for
systematic thoughts. Concerning unjustified hubris toward the outside
wrold, one thing is indicative. Other cultures such as Korean and
Vietnamese also adopt confucianism without being forced to. I don't
think confucianism has anything to do mother nature. If you do, please
inform.
>
> I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
> since May 4th 1918, have come to realize that what made them the butt
> of the joke of the modern human civilization and the victims of
> Japanese and western colonialism and imperialism was Confucianism.
>
> I though the Chinese' ability to launch taikonauts into space was the
> last nail to Confucius' coffin.
>
> But I was surprised to hear such a cliche' spewn forth as
>
> "Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
>
> from the same mouth, as far as I can recall, which spewed forth such
> a sophisticated concept as punctuated equilibria in connection with
> the theory of evolution.
I don't see any conflict.
>
> Academic theses on the subject of ethics are regularly churned out
> from first class philosphy departments in American colleges. And I
> can gurantee you that such a cliche as the `dao far'/`dao near' thing
> cited above does not have a place in those theses. It does not for
> the simple reason that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
"Dao is not fare from the people" is comparable to the Buddhist/Zen
concept of "normal heart is dao." It means dao is within grasp of most
people most of the time.
What if one assume the opposite? If dao is far from the people, then
philosophy, i.e. the love of wisdom, should be the private preserve of
the elites of first class philosophy departments in American colleges
and elsewhere. Do you buy that? I don't. As I had posted before, the
greatest possible wisdom is nothing but the collective common sense..
> China has been a sick patient for thousands of years and has barely
> got out of bed recently for having taken the right course of medicine.
I don't see China as a sick patient.
Things just happen. And one thing leads to the another.
> She is, however still full of deficiencies and weaknesses which can
> give her an irreversible relapse. The deficiencies include but are
> not limited to an excessive worship of money, a lack of environmental
> consciousness, the individual's indifference toward the society in
> which his or her family is a part of, a lack of finely-tuned legal
> system which respect the sanctity of life and individual freedom, a
> lack of a self-sufficient education system which produces world class
> scientists which are needed to sustain her need, and a deficiency in
> the awareness of the spiritual side of one's physical existence.
>
> When one examines these issues one by one, one can see how the Indians
> and the Japanese are presently far ahead of the Chinese in one area or
> another. For this reason, Japan is far ahead and India has a lot more
> potential to be ahead, of China.
I don't think discussing large and populous countries in such terms is
productive. May be you should be more specific.
>
> It is in my opinion totally short-sighted to be too confident about
> China' current economic success, which has been achieved at the
> expense of many other values which have long term ramifications.
No one should be too confident about anything. However, inertia and
momentum are real.
>
> Chinese intellectuals recognized by the early 1900s the problems of
> Confucianism.
I don't think I will be too wrong to say that Chinese intellectual by
the early 1900 knew much less about western culture. Without sufficient
knowledge, they could not really make objective comparation. Without
objective comparation, they were not in a good position to judge what
was wrong about China's culture.
> And in the past 100 years, an educated person was proud
> to recognize this fact.
The more I compare confucianism with the western culture, the more I
think confucianism will be the hope of humanity. For example, Samule
Huntington wrote about America's problem in national identity. Why? A
large part of the national identity as well the culture ethos are
derived from religion. The decline of religion hence affect the
national identit as well as the culture. China with confucianism will
not have the problem.
> Unfortunately that intellectual possession
> has now been replaced by a call to return to Confucianism. What a
> shame!
If you want to criticize confucianism about its teaching, this is
indeed the right forum. However, you need to be specific.
>
> I fully endorse rst0wxyz's view. China's survival depends on the
> total eradication of Confucianism in her society.
>
> China faces a great deal of challenge in her quest to survive. One
> needs to recognize the parallel between a country's survival to that
> of a species. A species survives a catastrophe because it somehow
> possesses a set of qualities which enables it to weather the effects
> of the catastrophe. It may not be aware of it; but it's it that
> evolution selects it instead of another strain. The challenges which
> a modern country faces now is no longer the sticks and stones that
> ancient China faced. The modern challenges which have their genesis
> in the age of the colonial powers require a precise understanding of
> the universe and all the other players which also inhabit in it.
>
> Confucius was a conniving politician above all. His disciples such as
> Mencius was an imprecise thinker at best.
Politician will need to satisfy most people most of the time to be
successful. Exception: Western democracy politicians need to get 50%+1
vote.
>
> When I see the name Confucius, I can't help but recall that scene from
> Zhiang Yi-Mou's ``The Red Lanterns'' in which women conspired with men
> to abuse and even murder other women while a bunch of servants of this
> decaying old-money household readily executed their master/mistresses'
> orders. ``What must be done will be done ...'', so said one of the
> mistresses and all the thoughtless people complied.
>
> Everything was all too reasonable to them, all too ``daoist'' to them
> because that's what they knew. What they knew was Confucius' teaching
> of hierarchy. That hierarchy is meant to pervade every cell in the
> society. Everyone fits into a particular slot in that hierarchy. So,
> it is all too reasonable for one at a hierarchical position to issue a
> call to get rid of, or murder, someone at an inferior position.
Confucianism is a tool. Not god.
PaPaPeng
yeeOn) wrote:
>
>It is a sad, sad, thoughtless, and arrogant statement. It does not
>bode well for the future of China or humanity.
>
>In those 2000+ years, confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>systematic thoughts, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
>including Mother Nature. It thrived while China at the same time got
>sicker and sicker by that weight of Confucianism.
You sound like a prime candidate for cult membership. Instead of
living life-as-is in the real world, modifying and adapting yourself
to new realities as you go along, you hunger for a set formula be it
Christianity, Confucianism, socialism, etc. and then hang on to that
as your sole salvation. Join the Falungong. This cult has very
simple slogans that will appeal to you and as a double bonus, condemn
Communism and Confucianism as practised in China today as evil.
akw...@hotmail.com
> But I was surprised to hear such a cliche' spewn forth as
>
> "Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
>
> from the same mouth, as far as I can recall, which spewed forth such
> a sophisticated concept as punctuated equilibria in connection with
> the theory of evolution.
ltlee:
> I don't see any conflict.
"Dao", by design ....
Is an ambiguous and amorphorous term. It is sufficiently vague that
both sides can have the mandatory "face", a highly cherished virtue
in Chinese society.
Broadly interpreted loosely as "the way", it transcends space, time.
And has usefulness even across myriad cultures. It wasn't that long
ago that Asian values were the rage of the day. A senior statesman
of Singapore touted his country's fidelity to "dao". Benevolent mon-
arches in imperial China were hailed as its followers while despotic
ones went down in history as its traitors. To many Chinese scholars,
the theory of revolution dated as far back as the classical period of
ancient China, when the eminent Confucianist, Xunzi, ennunciated
his famed Yao-Jie doctrine of the amoral heaven and its "dao":
"天道有常，不為堯存，不為桀亡。"
Therein, they insisted, lies the Darwin theory of natural selection.
With the obligatory Chinese characteristics .... :)
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Monticito/Santa Ysabel, California, USA.
ltlee1
The other netter may think I am going backward because I had written
the following.
"In biology, the theory of punctuated equilibria suggested that new
species are formed at isolated areas at the periphery. IF, it is a hugh
IF, one can considered cultural evolution the same way, then relatively
isolated region would be likely to provide impetus for cultural changes
in the core.
Historically speaking, the Chinese core were indeed reinvigorated
during the Tang dynasty and Qing dynasty by the once peripheral
population. Yuan was less successful because they did not adopt the
Chinese way as much as the Qing dynasty. Can the Hkers, Taiwanese,
Singaporeans and other oversea Chinese serve the same role culturally?"
I think they can. But I don't think the way is to dump the core.
rst0...@yahoo.com
>population.
LT, I don't know which version of Chinese history you read. During the
Qing Dynasty, the Chinese people were NOT reinvigorated. The Chinese
people were HUMILIATED. The Chinese were the butt of the jokes
throughout the world with its silly shaved forehead and queue. The
ltlee1
Please tell which version of Chinese history you had read.
The Chinese people were humiliated when China was weak, not during the
gilded age of Qianlong. Qing dynasty lasted for 268 years. The last 100
was terrible. But the first half was pretty good. .
rst0...@yahoo.com
Qianlong was the worst of all. Qianlong and his Confucius training
held the high and mighty attitude that China has no use these foreign
manufactures at the very beginning of the industrial revolution.
Qianlong had done more harm to China with high and mighty attitude that
he knew all and above all that caused China's eternal damnation of
coolie status in the world.
ltlee1
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >Qing dynasty by the once peripheral
> > > >population.
> > >
> > > LT, I don't know which version of Chinese history you read. During the
> > > Qing Dynasty, the Chinese people were NOT reinvigorated. The Chinese
> > > people were HUMILIATED. The Chinese were the butt of the jokes
> > > throughout the world with its silly shaved forehead and queue. The
> > > Chinese people were treated like animals throughout the world.
> >
> > Please tell which version of Chinese history you had read.
> > The Chinese people were humiliated when China was weak, not during the
> > gilded age of Qianlong. Qing dynasty lasted for 268 years. The last 100
> > was terrible. But the first half was pretty good. .
>
> Qianlong was the worst of all. Qianlong and his Confucius training
> held the high and mighty attitude that China has no use these foreign
> manufactures at the very beginning of the industrial revolution.
What "foreign manufactures" do you have on your mind?
Were westerners selling technology at Qianlong's time? If so, please
specify.
As far as I know, they were not selling technology at all. Rather, they
mostly sell things that China could produce. In return, they bought
silk and tea and china which were luxurious items. Hence, the trade
was beneficial to China at that time. And a last portion of the new
world gold and silver ended up in China. Actually the influx of
precious metal, including silver from Japan, began earlier. The trend
continued during the first half of Qing dynasty. Of course, the trade
pattern was changed after the Opium Wars. And the flow of precious
metal also reversed direction.
> Qianlong had done more harm to China with high and mighty attitude that
> he knew all and above all that caused China's eternal damnation of
> coolie status in the world.
History is not linear. Neither is technological innovation. China had
been ahead of the curve during most its history. It did carry with it a
lot of inertia.
ltlee1
direction. He did not think a fundamental, civil education was
important. He was shortsighted and he said,
"Of the Manchus' roots, riding and shooting is the first. If the
bannermen concentrate on and are allowed to be successfully examined on
the Confucian classics, they will despise and the horse, and that will
not enhance our military preparedness; on the contrary they will
contravene the very purpose for which the nation established
garrisons."
Later emperors were worse,
"What later emperors were advocating, in essence, was a vocational,
even professional, course of study for the bannermen, in which
adeptness in Manchu - as the language of the military sector - was
fundamental, and in which the more liberal, more more obviously civil
educational elements had little or no place. The significance of this
did not emerge until the military and educational reforms of the period
after the Opium War."
(Quotes from THE MANCHUS by Pamela Kyle Crossley)
rst0...@yahoo.com
LT, you really need to read up on the Qing Dynasty during the early
industrial revolution. Qianlong did more harm to China for what he did
NOT do. He didn't have the foresight to see English manufactures
present to him. China has been suffering since his time.
ltlee1
You are speaking with 20/20 hindsight.
rst0...@yahoo.com
It's Confucius teaching that tie China and its people to the past.
rst0...@yahoo.com
covers the time from the end of the Ming Dynasty to the take-over of
the Communist People's Republic of China..
ltlee1
Please be specific. What about confucianism that you don't like?
For example, you don't like confucius because he said X or Y.
lechergod
lechergod
originally the line of argue is how foreigner viewed the chinese,
so at the days Qinlong, it is still respected.
the weakness of Qing dynasty is by his grandfathers' order not to increase
tax, then this spendthrift spend a lot in wars to neighbourers,
making the government weak.
the the landlords are so strong enough to make the ordinary citizens very
poor !!!!
as concluded, the country is damaged by Qinlong,
but at the day of his ruling, citizens are not poor yet !!!
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
---
ltlee1
Please tell what he said.
Some quotes would be helpful.
rst0...@yahoo.com
Qianlong was emperor from 1735 - 1795, in reality to 1799 until his
death. He ruled China right at the very beginning of the industrial
revolution. In 1792, the British loaded two 66-gun man-of-war with
support vessels, each loaded with expensive gifts designed to show the
finest aspects of British manufacturing technolgy including scientists,
artists, guards, valets, and Chinese teachers from the Catholic college
in Naples.
Qianlong did not even want to see them, instead sent an edict to George
III explaining that China would not increase its foreign commerce
because it needed nothing from other countries. As Qianlong wrote, "We
have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need
of your country's manufactures. Therefore, O King, as regards your
request to send someone to remain at the capital, while it is not in
harmony with the regulations of the Celestial Empire we also feel very
much that it is of no advantage to your country."
Direct quotes from "The Search for Modern China" by Jonathan D. Spence,
Professor of History, Yale University pages 122-123.
ltlee1
Thank you for the quote.
Yes. Qianlong was arrogant. But was he really the cause of China's down
fall? Did Jonathan Spencer conclude that? My take, at that time, China
was not in need of foreign products except cannons which were purchased
from the west much earlier. Anyway, Qianlong did allow the trade to
continue.
rst0...@yahoo.com
Didn't you read his response to King George? He did not allow trade
with foreign countries. In less than 50 years, the Opium War, and the
lost of Hong Kong. As I said, he did more harm to China than anyone
else with his refusal to accept foreign ideas and his high and mighty
attitude. His trust in Heshen and his corruption was more than the
country can stand.
ltlee1
What are you talking about?
If Qianlong did not allow trade with foreign countries, how could
Britain had a trade deficit with China?
rst0...@yahoo.com
At that time, all foreign trades were limited to Canton in Guangdong
Province. The British were buying silk, ceramic products of porcelain
wares like dishes, vases, ornaments, tea,... from China and paying gold
and silver. China were not buying anything from the British. It came
to a point where England didn't have anymore gold and silver to pay.
So they started smuggling opium to China. China tried to stop the
opium trade but to no avail. The rest of the story you should know.
LT, you really should read up on your Chinese history.
ltlee1
That had nothing to do with Qianlong.
Rather it reflected a certain degree of xenophobia which should be
normal and an effort to preclude trade related violence. Actually, no
British ship dare to attempt trade in Canton for half a century
following a bloody skirmish by Wendell on behalf of the Courteen
Association at 1637.
In addition, Cantonese merchants and officials wanted to have a
monopoly on foreign trade, hence they petition to the court to shut
down other trade ports.
> The British were buying silk, ceramic products of porcelain
> wares like dishes, vases, ornaments, tea,... from China and paying gold
> and silver.
So, Qianlong did not stop trade. Right?
> China were not buying anything from the British.
No. China did buy something from the British traders, such as wool and
woollen products and many other items. Of course, south China had only
limited demand for wool.
> It came
> to a point where England didn't have anymore gold and silver to pay.
But the China trade certainly enriched the western merchants.
> So they started smuggling opium to China. China tried to stop the
> opium trade but to no avail. The rest of the story you should know.
>
> LT, you really should read up on your Chinese history.
I never read anything saying Qianlong did not allow trade with foreign
countries. As a matter of fact, Qianlong as well as China were enriched
by foreign trade. Without the wealth dereived from foreign trade,
Qianlong would not be able to deal with the then rapidly expanding
Russia successfully.
If you know any history book stating Qianlong did not allow trade with
foreign countries, please let me know.
rst0...@yahoo.com
This so called "trade" was one-way, to sell to the British in return
for gold or silver. The British had to get some money back, hence, the
smuggling of opium into China. China was still the "center of the
universe". All others were inferior foreign devils.
ltlee1
The trade was largely free and it existed more than one hundred years
before Qianlong's time. It was only one way look it from the
mercantilst's point of view.
lo yeeOn
Dear Mr. Lee,
I did not say any such thing. I simply said that I thought you had to
be quite well-educated since I recalled seeing you mentioned the word
punctuated equilibrium in one of your posts. And finally I did not
have the thought you suggested I might have had since I did not recall
what you said about punctuated equilibrium. I'm sorry for any
misunderstanding about this.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
In article <v185525rsobcrg9nh...@4ax.com>,
PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2006 09:33:42 -0700, "rst0...@yahoo.com"
><rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
>>>started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
>>
>>It's a waste of time to talk about Confucius and his philosophy. Leave
>>it to history, and study it as history. Talk about today's philosophy,
>>not 2,500 year-old philosophy.
>
>Confuciaism has been practiced in China for more than 2000 years. You
>see it in action everyday. Unless you have something new to add or
>want to do an academic paper the recommendation is don't waste your
>time going over a path that has already been well troddeen.
It is a sad, sad, uninformed, and arrogant statement. It does not
bode well for the future of China or humanity.
In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
China wilt away.
I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
since May 4th 1919, had come to realize that what made them the butt
of the joke of the modern human civilization and the victims of
Japanese and Western colonialism and imperialism was Confucianism.
May-4th had its genesis in the year 1919 because the infamous
Treaty of Versaille which reassigned German interests in China to
other European powers as well as Japan was not signed until November
of 1918, the year Germany was defeated and WWI ended.
The May Fourth Movement marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism,
and a re-evaluation of Chinese cultural institutions, such as
Confucianism. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the
Treaty of Versailles settlement and the effect of the New Cultural
Movement.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement)
I thought the Chinese ability to launch taikonauts into space was the
last nail in Confucius' coffin. In other words, there is no way China
would have had her success in space exploration today had it not been
for the conscious effort among Chinese intellectuals of the 1900s to
try to dismantle Confucianism. Their assessment was visionary and the
founders of modern China saw the need to execute that vision, laying
the foundation of today's progress.
But I was surprised to hear such cliches spewn forth as
"Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
from the same mouth, as far as I can recall, which also spewed forth
such a sophisticated concept as punctuated equilibria in connection
with the theory of evolution.
Academic theses on the subject of ethics are regularly churned out
from first class philosphy departments in American colleges. And I
can gurantee you that such a cliche as the `dao far'/`dao near' thing
cited above does not have a place in those theses. It does not for
the simple reason that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
China has been a sick patient for thousands of years and has barely
got out of bed recently for having taken the right course of medicine.
She is, however still full of deficiencies and weaknesses which can
give her an irreversible relapse. The deficiencies include but are
not limited to an excessive worship of money, a lack of environmental
consciousness, the individual's indifference toward the society which
his or her family is a part of, a lack of a finely-tuned legal system
which respects the sanctity of life and individual freedom, a lack of
a self-sufficient education system which produces world class
scientists which are needed to sustain her needs, and a deficiency in
the awareness of the spiritual side of one's physical existence.
When one examines these issues one by one, one can see how the Indians
and the Japanese are presently far ahead of the Chinese in one area or
another. For this reason, Japan is far ahead, and India has a lot
more potential to be ahead, of China.
It is in my opinion totally short-sighted to be too confident about
China's current health when its short-term economic success is used as
measure. Besides its current economic expansion has been achieved at
the expense of many other values which have long term ramifications.
Chinese intellectuals recognized by the early 1900s the problems of
Confucianism. And in the past 100 years, an educated person was proud
to recognize this fact. Unfortunately that intellectual possession
has now been replaced by complacency, accompanied by a call to return
to Confucianism. What a shame!
I fully endorse rst0wxyz's view. China's survival depends on the
total eradication of Confucianism in her society.
China faces a great deal of challenge in her quest to survive. One
needs to recognize the parallel between a country's survival to that
of a species. A species survives a catastrophe because it somehow
possesses a set of qualities which enables it to weather the effects
of the catastrophe. The species may not be aware of it; but it's this
set of qualities for which evolution selects it instead of another
strain.
The challenges which a modern country faces now are no longer the
sticks and stones that ancient China faced. The modern challenges
which have their genesis in the age of the colonial powers require a
precise understanding of the universe and all the other players which
also inhabit in it.
Confucius was, above all, a conniving politician whose main interest
was to gain the support and favor of the kings and the powerful of his
days. His disciple Mencius was an imprecise thinker at best.
It is clear that Mencius' near-dao-is-dao makes no sense.
First, one's dao is entirely limited by one's experience. If one was
never aware of a certain way, that way would never be apparent to him.
And the experential condition is exactly why China had this laughable
idea that it was the ``middle'' kingdom on earth. And that's why few
people understood that the world had to be round until Christopher
Columbus, Magellan, and others from the 15th century proved it.
Before Newton, it was not obvious to men that apples falling from
trees and the earth orbiting around the sun are merely different
manifestations of the same law of physics, namely, gravitation.
But even Newton did not anticipate that space and time are not
absolute but are intermixed in a way depending on the set of
conditions involved in the experimental observation. And only when
the role of the observer was clarified and its significance was fully
quantified before atomic energy, space travel, and quantum physics
become knowledge relevant to applications.
In fact I grew up without either being aware of or understanding most
of the physics which I've come to know today. In fact, it is hard to
know about Galilean relativity without actually having seen a train
speed by, sounding its horn. And if human beings weren't thinking
about the propagation of light behaving similar to the propagation of
sound coming out of a fast moving object, we would not have realized
that light actually does not behave like sound at all and so Galilean
relativity must be replaced by what is now known as Einstein's special
relativity. One thing leads to another, deep space probes today makes
use of Einstein's general relativity to propel the physical probes
along previously unthinkable paths through space curved by matter in
it.
Likewise, without a lot of dedicated work and good luck, we would not
have known about the origin of most diseases or the shapes, the
structures, and the functions of the viruses or bacteria which cause
them.
What I am saying is that near daos are typically not true daos because
true daos take work and dilligence to get to know. They are not
familiar things lying around near you for you to know. They are not
products of ignorance but rather of understanding.
If the child grows up interacting with ignorant parents and ignorant
teachers, the adult will remain ignorant. It has got nothing to do
with love. It has everything to do with the relationship between our
knowledge and our environmental context. One is the product of one's
environment, one's community. No wonder that Chinese were ignorant
until the guns, the cannons, and the artilleries woke them up at the
end of the 19th century.
The Boxers believed that righteousness would help them deflect the
bullets.
When modern Chinese intellectuals came to identify the source of the
problem, they found that, for thousands of years, Chinese had been a
bunch of ignoramuses, bound by the chains and shackles of, by and
large, Confucianism.
It was _the_ source because it became clear that it wasn't the skin
color or the height of the people that made them ignoramuses. It was,
rather, the culture. Chinese culture for thousands of years was
nothing but the suffocating rules and rituals of Confucianism which
put everyone in exactly the same spot he and she were born in, except
for a few who would invest their precious childhood memorizing nonsense
and never learning to ask a sharp question.
(In fact, Chinese scholars asked all sorts of questions just like the
Indians, the Jews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians did.
But whereas the Europeans had only a few hundred years of a dark ages,
the Chinese had a few thousands. And whereas there were a few
scattered brilliant discoveries here and there in China, the Europeans
had a rich tradition of science and logic.)
Even though it was said that Mencius allowed for the overthrowing of a
king, we can be sure that 99.9999999999% of the Chinese did not know
such a dao.
Instead, men and women alike, from generation to generation, learned
from the first day of their goo-gahs the oppressive dao of
knowing-thy-place, something Confucianism makes sure you know.
This belief is so influential that even loving fathers and mothers
allowed themselves to hear the agonized cries of their daughters night
after night, month after month, and year after year, until their
beloved victims of Confucianism grew numb to the pain of their bound
feet.
The near daos are the daos that people were propagandized to know.
They are the daos that have been institutionalized with the full
intention to prevent the king's subjects from being unruly.
Confucius, the conniving politician in rabbi's clothing, wanted a seat
next to the throne. So he gave the central tenet of Confucianism that
every king could instantly appreciate:
King, king; servant, servant; Dad, dad; son, son.
And to supplement it, Confucius added the ``middle-ness'' proposal.
Middleness is another belief a Chinese king could really appreciate
because he was brought up believing that China was, by divine design,
centrally situated in the middle of the yellow earth. It would be so
apt to have everyone believe that this middleness nonsense is really a
virtue to espouse. No one would get out of his place one inch, and
the world would forever be peaceful and harmonious. This might work
despite the great inequity it promotes except that when your goal is
.5 of everything, then after enough generations, .5x.5x.5x...x.5 is so
close to zero it might as well be zero.
Yep, that's ``life as-is''!
Maybe the Indians invented the number zero, but Confucianism certainly
provides the path to perfect it.
Middleness is the sure dao to mediocrity.
China crumbled when foreigners who had not been taught this middleness
nonsense finally showed up, flexed their muscles, and hollered:
If you have your canons, fire them now to show us that you're your
own master. If not, then we'll come in and be yours. If you
resist, then you'll have to admit that you are just a bunch of
hypocrites who do not believe in your Confucianism. Furthermore,
we'll fire our canons at you to show you who is your real master!
China was too mediocre to have any other response but to surrender.
Only when modern Chinese came to realize what made China so ill for
thousands of years, through the pain of humiliation from foreign
occupation and then through a lot of death and destruction brought on
by the Imperial Japanese invasion, did their salvation dawn.
The May Fourth Movement marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism,
and a re-evaluation of Chinese cultural institutions, such as
Confucianism. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the
Treaty of Versailles settlement and the effect of the New Cultural
Movement.
Actually, the Chinese awakening was preceded by its Japanese
counterpart, which took place about a half century before.
Japan recognized the need of a serious reform early, when they saw the
Europeans and Americans coming in their ships equipped with cannons.
As a result, its government implemented the Maiji Reform in the 1800s.
By the 1930s, Japan succeeded in having a completely self-reliant
education system which was capable of producing first-rate physicists
and mathematicians without having to send them abroad for advanced
education and then risk losing them if they were good.
They produced such home-grown physicists as Yukawa, Tomonaga, (Ruogo)
Kubo (of fluctuation-dissipation theorem, among other things) and many
others whom the world has been eager to learn from.
Japan has the most advanced, self-sufficient, and well-supported
scientific and technological infrastructure extant to help her
citizens to survive the next catastrophe when it does come. And it
will, with probability one, even though the time is not within our
means to be certain about. Its coming should, however, be clear if
one has the knowledge to know.
India, another Asian country, has also succeeded in building its own
completely self-sufficient education system producing many capable
scientists and engineers including such eminent physicists as Satyenda
Bose (the Bose of Bose-Einstein statistics and bosons which give us
superconducting currents), Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman (of Raman
spectroscopy), and many other great scientists.
As early as the 1920s and 30s, India and Japan were already able to
produce the world's greatest minds in physics without the help of
Europe or America. The names given above were all products of that
era.
Naturally, the Soviet Union's own education system was the envy of
even the West today. And not surprisingly, Israel has its own.
But China to this day does not have such a system. The great
physicist Chen-Ning Yang has had hopeful words about this:
``Be patient, China will be there . . .''
In fact, he in his 80s are now in Beijing to help out, after spending
his whole life in the US. But it takes more than an individual. And
it will require the collective consciousness of the Chinese people to
do it.
In order to match the self-reliant level of India (let alone Japan,
Israel, Russia, and the West), in so far as technological and
scientific infrastructure is concerned, parents have to know how to
invest in their children and the society has to know how to invest in
its younger generations. Their reward won't come through slaving away
most of their lives to save enough money to send their only child to a
foreign land to learn English alone. It's not only not enough, but
it's the wrong thing to devote one's life to accomplishing.
The parents have to train their son or daughter to think critically,
to learn science and engineering, and to be socially conscious and
aware of the individual's duty to society. Here the government and
the society have the duty to educate the masses so that parents who
have not had their share of education while growing up could still
have the wisdom to do the right thing for their children. It will not
be through blind investment, rather through a wise one. In the end, a
wise investment will be the ultimate reward and satisfaction for one's
life's hard work.
To understand the urgency of China's destiny, we need to note that the
time it took from Meiji Reform to the rise of Yukawa, Tomonaga, Kubo,
and others was about three generations. For China, it has been more
than three generations since 1919; yet she remains far from being
self-reliant in the way Japan has been. Unless China is as serious
about fixing its deficiency as Japan was, it will be a long, long,
long time, or never!
What I'm saying is:
Maybe China is now doing fine, having found a niche to fill when the
US is losing or giving up its manufacturing base. But it's highly
doubtful that China will be ready if some catastrophe strikes and
wipes away its current labor-intensive advantage in common-goods
manufacturing and if it does not already have the scientific
infrastructure extant to help it survive the occasion.
So what if the dinosaurs were able to fill the planet Earth's niche
for a while? They got wiped out entirely when a catastrophe arrived
when a suitable set of survival qualities did not exist to help them
ward off the disaster.
If one does not recognize that one is constantly in danger and gets
prepared, one's unlikely to survive the next catastrophe.
To have heard about the Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
to have known that China is the ultimate target, to have seen what's
happened in Iraq, and to have anticipated what's likely to happen to
Iran but carry on as usual, without recognizing that danger is in the
horizon, is like the grass-hoppers not getting ready for the winter.
In Aesop's fable, they starved and died.
China was not ready when the Boxers tried to use their bare hands to
fight the invaders. She was again not ready when the Imperial
Japanese invaded a few decades later, despite seeing a pattern of
design beginning at the start of the 20th century.
(In some way, Mao et al.'s Long March was the key to their collective
survival.)
So, one might ask is China still going to be unready when the next
disaster comes?
To wallow in the worship of money and immediate material comfort at
the expense of serious progress is a sure way to die when the next
disaster strikes China.
On the other hand, to be cognizant of one's own deficiency, to break
with a past that has held one down, and to strive to make continual
renewal is an act of repentance, a pre-requisite for redemption.
It is like repentance for the sinner who finally sees with great
regrets his own failings.
No wonder why Lao-Tze wrote that the real way is not your common way.
``Dao ke dao; Fey zhang dao.''
No wonder why Jesus spoke of the path to salvation as one which had
few takers. Why few? Obviously when one is ignorant, one wouldn't
recognize the impending dangers, nor the ways to avoid them.
The common way is false comfort. The way to salvation is the way one
has to seek, to learn, and to sort out in order to find. Near dao is
right there; but with high probability it is not the right dao.
Now when putatively educated Chinese are advocating Confucianism,
preaching it as a virtue and as an inherently Chinese way, they are
advocating a path of regression. You know, regression does not bode
well for a people.
When I see the name Confucius, I can't help but recall that scene from
Zhiang Yi-Mou's ``To Raise the Red Lantern'' in which women conspired
with men to abuse and even murder other women while a bunch of
servants of this decaying old-money household readily executed their
master/mistresses' orders. ``What must be done will be done ...'', so
said one of the mistresses and all the thoughtless people complied.
Everything was all too reasonable to them, all too ``daoist'' to them
because that's what they knew. What they knew was Confucius' teaching
of hierarchy. That hierarchy is meant to pervade every cell of the
society. Everyone fits into a particular slot in that hierarchy. So,
it is all too reasonable for one in a position of hierarchy to issue a
call to get rid of, or murder, someone at an inferior position.
It is horrible. This kind of horror was only legitimized for the
kings in other cultures. But for China, thanks to Mr. Confucius, the
conniving politician, the horror was institutionalized to the max at
every level of the society and at every corner across the land.
In fact the premier historian on the Warring Nations She Ma Chien, a
court appointed historian in fact, took the pain to give a
heart-wrenching story about a son X who was willing to submit himself
to be the victim of a murder plot after he was informed that his
father had ordered it.
(She Ma Chien even assured the reader that it wasn't some wrong son X
had done which had motivated his father's heinous plot. It was only
because son X's stepmother wanted her own son Y to inherit the
patriarch's title when he passed. And she, presently being in her
husband's favor, was able to persuade him to do the ghastly deed. And
when son Y learned about it from the mother but felt morally compelled
to tell his step-brother about the plot in hope to save him and at the
same time offered himself to be the target of assassination, again due
to junior's devotion to Confucianism, his noble offer was refused
because step-brother X felt sufficiently compelled by his filial duty
that he had no choice but to die as his father had wished.)
In any other dramatic rendition, the brothers would both rebel against
their father or run for their lives together.
But in She Ma Chien's heavily confucianized rendition, Son X felt he
had to submit himself to his dad's wishes because of the unviolable
teaching of Confucius:
King, king; servants, servants; father, father; son, son.
One might wonder why this court-appointed, and much revered (perhaps
for the same reason why Confucius was revered) historian took the
trouble to include this story in his history book, a story which
is so unfathomable and which may not even be true, i.e., apocryphal
at best?
Perhaps, like most official historians, She Ma Chien was performing
his propagandist role for his master, the king. He thought it
important to introduce this extreme case to make sure that the
Confucian law is _never_ to be broken.
(Incidentally, our chief propagandist in the US today has been
Condoleezza Rice. And she called herself a historian. Perhaps it is
not coincidental after all that all these government officials make
themselves historians.)
``To Raise the Red Lantern'' is a movie worth seeing to get a glimpse of
the effect of Confucianism on the Chinese society for thousands of years.
That effect still lingers.
In fact, Confucianism was so institutionalized that it became part of
the consciousness of the people. The rules and rituals involved made
it in essence into a religion. It was codified as something inviolable.
Confucian thoughts were taught from generation to generation. That's
what you learn when you go to school. Not Newton's laws, dialectics,
or geometry, but how to be ``good citizens and good sons and daughters
and good daughters-in-laws''. No wonder why then it is perceived as
something being practiced by every Chinese (according to Papa-Peng) and
as the right-dao because it is the near-dao (according to LT Lee).
Finally, there is something Confucius set him aside from the rabbis
we've come to know:
Moses, the prophets in the old testament of the Christian bible, John
the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples, Socrates, Lao-Tse, Mo-tse, the
Mahamat Mohandas Gandhi were people who shunned power and worldly
attachments to teach their wisdom.
But Confucius demanded sausages and delicious ham cuts for tuition
before he would teach you. If he would just stop there, maybe it's
ok. And maybe not! But he spent 40 years trying to be close to the
kings and high officials to sell his stuff.
When I say maybe not, I was thinking:
``Does he think that it is more important to give the message out
or it is better to keep it except for the rich kids who could afford
his ivy_league education?''
I had a teacher who joked that when Confucius said
``Learn and learn again, how agreeable it is'',
it was the teacher who found it agreeable because he got his pork.
And that actually may have a grain of truth to it, knowing the rest
of Confucius.
Confucius's way is not Jesus way. Nor, the way of Lao-tze, Mo-tze or
Socrates.
Particularly, it is not the way of Gandhi, who taught by example and
by sacrifice so that his teaching could strongly resonate with his
listeners. His work took India to modernity through noviolence.
Since Confucius was supposed to be such an advocate of teaching, let
me close by quoting Gandhi:
Live as if you were to die tomorrow.
Learn as if you were to live forever.
---Mahatma Gandhi
Now Gandhi had taken pains to set an example for his followers of what
he believed to be right. What do we find in Confucius but his
lifelong connivance to get richly paid and the kings' favor?
Nay, Confucianism has no place in China or any society. China cannot
afford it. Anyone who advocates it for China wants China to die when
the next catastrophe comes --- or before.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:50:44 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo
>yeeOn) wrote:
>
>>
>>It is a sad, sad, thoughtless, and arrogant statement. It does not
>>bode well for the future of China or humanity.
>>
>>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>>including Mother Nature. It thrived while China at the same time got
>>sicker and sicker by that weight of Confucianism.
>
>
>You sound like a prime candidate for cult membership. Instead of
>living life-as-is in the real world, modifying and adapting yourself
>to new realities as you go along, you hunger for a set formula be it
>Christianity, Confucianism, socialism, etc. and then hang on to that
>as your sole salvation. Join the Falungong. This cult has very
>simple slogans that will appeal to you and as a double bonus, condemn
>Communism and Confucianism as practised in China today as evil.
lo yeeOn
ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>lo yeeOn wrote:
>> In article <v185525rsobcrg9nh...@4ax.com>,
>> PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On 28 Apr 2006 09:33:42 -0700, "rst0...@yahoo.com"
>> ><rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
>> >>>started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
>> >>
>> >>It's a waste of time to talk about Confucius and his philosophy. Leave
>> >>it to history, and study it as history. Talk about today's philosophy,
>> >>not 2,500 year-old philosophy.
>> >
>> >Confuciaism has been practiced in China for more than 2000 years. You
>> >see it in action everyday. Unless you have something new to add or
>> >want to do an academic paper the recommendation is don't waste your
>> >time going over a path that has already been well troddeen.
>>
>> bode well for the future of China or humanity.
>>
>> In those 2000+ years, confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
>> for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>> members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>> systematic thoughts, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
>> China to wilt away.
>
>Confucianism does not cause the practice of bound feet for women. The
>notion of supremacy for the male members in the family was universal.
>Nor does it cause the stagnation of the society and the contempt for
>systematic thoughts. Concerning unjustified hubris toward the outside
>wrold, one thing is indicative. Other cultures such as Korean and
>Vietnamese also adopt confucianism without being forced to. I don't
>think confucianism has anything to do mother nature. If you do, please
>inform.
>
>>
>> I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
>> of the joke of the modern human civilization and the victims of
>>
>> I though the Chinese' ability to launch taikonauts into space was the
>> last nail to Confucius' coffin.
>>
>> But I was surprised to hear such a cliche' spewn forth as
>>
>> "Dao is not far from people; far from people is not dao." No?
>>
>> a sophisticated concept as punctuated equilibria in connection with
>> the theory of evolution.
>
>>
>> from first class philosphy departments in American colleges. And I
>> can gurantee you that such a cliche as the `dao far'/`dao near' thing
>> cited above does not have a place in those theses. It does not for
>> the simple reason that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
>
>concept of "normal heart is dao." It means dao is within grasp of most
>people most of the time.
>What if one assume the opposite? If dao is far from the people, then
>philosophy, i.e. the love of wisdom, should be the private preserve of
>the elites of first class philosophy departments in American colleges
>and elsewhere. Do you buy that? I don't. As I had posted before, the
>greatest possible wisdom is nothing but the collective common sense..
>
>> China has been a sick patient for thousands of years and has barely
>> got out of bed recently for having taken the right course of medicine.
>
>Things just happen. And one thing leads to the another.
>
>> She is, however still full of deficiencies and weaknesses which can
>> give her an irreversible relapse. The deficiencies include but are
>> not limited to an excessive worship of money, a lack of environmental
>> which his or her family is a part of, a lack of finely-tuned legal
>> system which respect the sanctity of life and individual freedom, a
>> lack of a self-sufficient education system which produces world class
>> the awareness of the spiritual side of one's physical existence.
>>
>> When one examines these issues one by one, one can see how the Indians
>> and the Japanese are presently far ahead of the Chinese in one area or
>> potential to be ahead, of China.
>
>productive. May be you should be more specific.
>
>>
>> It is in my opinion totally short-sighted to be too confident about
>> expense of many other values which have long term ramifications.
>
>momentum are real.
>>
>> Chinese intellectuals recognized by the early 1900s the problems of
>> Confucianism.
>
>the early 1900 knew much less about western culture. Without sufficient
>knowledge, they could not really make objective comparation. Without
>objective comparation, they were not in a good position to judge what
>was wrong about China's culture.
>
>> And in the past 100 years, an educated person was proud
>> to recognize this fact.
>
>think confucianism will be the hope of humanity. For example, Samule
>Huntington wrote about America's problem in national identity. Why? A
>large part of the national identity as well the culture ethos are
>derived from religion. The decline of religion hence affect the
>national identit as well as the culture. China with confucianism will
>not have the problem.
>
>> Unfortunately that intellectual possession
>> has now been replaced by a call to return to Confucianism. What a
>> shame!
>
>If you want to criticize confucianism about its teaching, this is
>indeed the right forum. However, you need to be specific.
>
>
>>
>> I fully endorse rst0wxyz's view. China's survival depends on the
>> total eradication of Confucianism in her society.
>>
>> China faces a great deal of challenge in her quest to survive. One
>> needs to recognize the parallel between a country's survival to that
>> of a species. A species survives a catastrophe because it somehow
>> possesses a set of qualities which enables it to weather the effects
>> evolution selects it instead of another strain. The challenges which
>> ancient China faced. The modern challenges which have their genesis
>> in the age of the colonial powers require a precise understanding of
>> the universe and all the other players which also inhabit in it.
>>
>> Mencius was an imprecise thinker at best.
>
>successful. Exception: Western democracy politicians need to get 50%+1
>vote.
>
>>
>> When I see the name Confucius, I can't help but recall that scene from
>> to abuse and even murder other women while a bunch of servants of this
>> decaying old-money household readily executed their master/mistresses'
>> orders. ``What must be done will be done ...'', so said one of the
>> mistresses and all the thoughtless people complied.
>>
>> Everything was all too reasonable to them, all too ``daoist'' to them
>> because that's what they knew. What they knew was Confucius' teaching
>> society. Everyone fits into a particular slot in that hierarchy. So,
>> call to get rid of, or murder, someone at an inferior position.
>
>>
>> It is horrible. This kind of horror was only legitimized for the
>> conniving politician, the horror was institutionalized to the max at
>> every level of the society and at every corner across the land.
>>
>> advocates it for China wants China to die.
>>
>>
>> lo yeeOn
>> ========
>
An extensive revision of my previous post follows:
In article <v185525rsobcrg9nh...@4ax.com>,
ltlee1
It seems to me you still have problem with Menzi's "Dao is not far from
people."
I had extensive discussion over what is "common sense" and why the
corrective common sense is the highest possible wisdom. If you are
interested, you are welcome to comment on the discussions.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/5da9ef248024a3d8?hl=en&
Anyway, you are welcome to criticize Confucianism. However, it would be
more contructive if you can be more specific. For instance, the linkage
because Confucianism and foot binding in women. I certainly did not
read all the confucisan texts and their commentaries. However, I will
be surprised if any text or commentary directly or indirectly suggests
foot binding because it is confucianistic to do so.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
>including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
>China wilt away.
You haven't a clue what confucianism is about to even to begin to
discuss the subject.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
>including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
>China wilt away.
You don't have a clue as to what Confucianism is about to even begin
to discuss it. The next piece of advice is to throw away the
dictionary. You use difficult wordsand ideas without knowing their
meaning or usage and in circumstances that have little to do with the
subject. All you have done so far is to expose your unhappiness with
much that was wrong with Chinese traditional practices and confuse
that with Confucius' teachings and practice.
shazi
> In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused
> the practice of bound feet for women, the
not part of confucianism.
> indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
> members in the family,
the cultural supremacy of the male
is replete throughout most systems of thought.
1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence
in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also saith the law.
> the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
> systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward
> the outside world, including Mother Nature.
none of this is confucian.
> She is, however still full of deficiencies and
> weaknesses which can give her an irreversible relapse.
> The deficiencies include but are not limited
> to an excessive worship of money, a lack
> of environmental consciousness, the
> individual's indifference toward the society which
> his or her family is a part of,
confucianism in its root form can provide
the guiding principles for remedying all these things.
> a lack of a self-sufficient education system which
> produces world class scientists which are needed
> to sustain her needs,
confucianism in its root is pro-education, in the
fullest sense of the investigation of things.
a confucian core value is to provide universal, free,
and public education, and advancement based
solely upon merit.
> and a deficiency in the awareness of the
> spiritual side of one's physical existence.
confucianism is accused of being atheist.
although confucius took no definite position
on religion, he advocated the participation in
religion (obviously, ritual), as well as exploring
the yi, a strongly spiritual work.
> When one examines these issues one by one,
> one can see how the Indians and the Japanese
> are presently far ahead of the Chinese in one area
> or another.
if you wish to speak of a rigorously confucian
society, you could state none greater than japan.
japan tended throughout its history to adhere
more to the spirit of confucianism than the chinese
emperors allowed, and did not abandon its cultural
heritage in the 20th century as did the chinese.
Hence, the japanese are a more efficient
society in their heirarchies, be them business or
otherwise, and thus can more effectively compete
with the chaos that china has become.
> For this reason, Japan is far ahead, and India
> has a lot more potential to be ahead, of China.
Curiously, both of your examples adhere strongly
to their cultural roots and heritage. India does
not advocate abolition of hinduism, even if the
caste system is inherently unfair. japanese
also have their classes. On the other hand,
confucianism at its root, requiring the junzi to
not treat another in an unequal way, provides
at least the guidelines for a fair, merit-based
society. Notwithstanding, chinese imperial
application of rujia was class-based.
> Chinese intellectuals recognized by the early
> 1900s the problems of Confucianism. And in
> the past 100 years, an educated person was proud
> to recognize this fact. Unfortunately that intellectual
> possession has now been replaced by complacency,
> accompanied by a call to return to Confucianism.
> What a shame!
i find no universal call to confucianism.
i do find complacency, and a widespread ignorance
as to confucian or any other spiritual values.
i would not advocate a return to confucianism
as practiced by abusive leaders, be them
political or familiar.
i do believe that confucianism should be
revisited, considered in its root forms, divested
from the baggage it accreted over time, and
syncretised with scientific and spiritual thinking.
there is an inherent advantage of confucian
values over other religious-based value systems.
the values of a religion are the ontologies and
cosmologies embedded into dogma around the
meaning of existence. confucianism provides,
in contrast and without any degree of conflict,
an ethic, a set of guiding principles on how
to live.
> I fully endorse rst0wxyz's view.
> China's survival depends on the
> total eradication of Confucianism in her society.
i could not disagree more adamantly.
japanese remain japanese by virtue of their
cultural heritage. likewise the indians.
you would obliterate the very foundations
of chinese uniqueness. in its place, what?
foreign marxism? foreign christianity?
foreign buddhism? or, perhaps, just simply
no cultural or ethical values?
> The Boxers believed that righteousness would help them deflect the
> bullets.
i can cite several christian sects who believed the same thing.
> When modern Chinese intellectuals came to identify the source of the
> problem, they found that, for thousands of years, Chinese had been a
> bunch of ignoramuses, bound by the chains and shackles of, by and
> large, Confucianism.
note the direct parallels between christianity in the west,
and confucianism in the east. any state-enforced
belief system replaces knowledge with dogma.
but confucianism is not a belief system.
that's the imperial error. by making rujia
the state religion, they basically screwed
it up. what you object to is the strawman
called confucianism by the dynasties.
> (In fact, Chinese scholars asked all sorts of questions just like the
> Indians, the Jews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians did.
> But whereas the Europeans had only a few hundred years of a dark ages,
> the Chinese had a few thousands. And whereas there were a few
> scattered brilliant discoveries here and there in China, the Europeans
> had a rich tradition of science and logic.)
a few hundred years versus a few thousand?
> Japan has the most advanced, self-sufficient, and well-supported
> scientific and technological infrastructure extant to help her
> citizens to survive the next catastrophe when it does come. And it
> will, with probability one, even though the time is not within our
> means to be certain about. Its coming should, however, be clear if
> one has the knowledge to know.
created by virtue of its single-minded confucian-styled
heirarchal thinking.
> Naturally, the Soviet Union's own education system was the envy of
> even the West today.
(cough) surely you jest.
> And not surprisingly, Israel has its own.
>
> But China to this day does not have such a system.
duh. that's because the value framework for
education was done away.
> On the other hand, to be cognizant of one's own deficiency, to break
> with a past that has held one down, and to strive to make continual
> renewal is an act of repentance, a pre-requisite for redemption.
>
> It is like repentance for the sinner who finally sees with great
> regrets his own failings.
>
> No wonder why Lao-Tze wrote that the real way is not your common way.
>
> ``Dao ke dao; Fey zhang dao.''
fei chang dao. "no constant path"
ah, so you want to bring daoism into the mix?
are you suggesting doing away with that too?
yet from its inherently non-religious beginnings
daoism morphed into a full-fledged religion.
superstitions, talismans, elixirs for immortality
even until this day.
yet at its core, like confucianism, exactly what
is needed for today's world: living in harmony with
nature (daoism), and living in productive harmony with
one's fellow humankind (confucianism).
precisely what is needed for not just china,
but the world today.
-shazi
------------
please ask your newsgroup provider to add
alt.philosophy.confucianism! thanks.
lo yeeOn
PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:09:25 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
>wrote:
>
>>In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
>>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
>>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
>>systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
>>including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
>>China wilt away.
>
>
>You don't have a clue as to what Confucianism is about to even begin
>to discuss it. The next piece of advice is to throw away the
>meaning or usage and in circumstances that have little to do with the
>subject. All you have done so far is to expose your unhappiness with
>much that was wrong with Chinese traditional practices and confuse
>that with Confucius' teachings and practice.
Hurling one insult after another does not make your claim any more
valid. In fact, you made claims about your own knowledge without
evidence but rather with contradiction. (Essentially, you claimed to
be a practising ``confucian'' without knowing what Confucianism is.
It sounds a free-wheeling kind of thing to me.) I have a lot of
respect for your parents; but that doesn't mean that Confucianism
didn't cause great harm to China for thousands of years.
PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in a separate thread:
> I am a practising confucian, at least that's how I view myself. I
> did not go through a Chinese language school and was never formally
> taught confucian philosophy. Everything I am I learned from my
> parents by watching how they conducted themselves. To this day I
> respect what they conferred on me by example and I conduct myself as
> they would have expected me to. They never had the time to instruct
> us formally on anything. They were poor and, if I may say, bullied
> socially and in the family hierachy. But they never took it upon
> themselves to complain about their lot in life. They worked hard and
> in the end all of us 11 siblings came off quite well in life. Yes I
> also know how cruel outdated and rigid old customs can be, committed
> in the name of Confucius. My step-grandmother and her side of the
> family was in that mold. We left them far behind.
And look at how you hurled insults:
> You sound like a prime candidate for cult membership. Instead of
> living life-as-is in the real world, modifying and adapting yourself
> to new realities as you go along, you hunger for a set formula be it
> Christianity, Confucianism, socialism, etc. and then hang on to that
> as your sole salvation. Join the Falungong. This cult has very
> simple slogans that will appeal to you and as a double bonus,
> condemn Communism and Confucianism as practised in China today as
> evil.
My assessment has been well-established for about 100 years by now, by
many thinking persons who have seen and thought about the situation in
China.
That's why I took the trouble to post the preamble from a reputed
source at the second time.
The May Fourth Movement marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism,
and a re-evaluation of Chinese cultural institutions, such as
Confucianism. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Treaty of Versailles settlement and the effect of the New Cultural
Movement.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement)
The more you are trying to suppress the information and arguments I
presented, the more I feel the need that Chinese and non-Chinese alike
need to know the damage Confucianism has done to China and thwarted
progress for all humanity, allowing such an atrocious disaster to
happen as the Imperial Japanese invasion and occupation in the first
part of the 1900s.
Even now, China is nowhere near where the revitalized Japan was in the
1930s (as explained in detail in my previous posts). If a substantial
number of Chinese are as unaware and as arrogant as you are, then
China will probably have no choice but suffer an even worse fate than
the Japanese invasion, this time at the hands of the relentless PNAC
warriors.
You and the others who vehemently oppose my post but without taking a
serious look at my arguments need to read them and reflect on them
diligently so that you maybe wake up someday.
lo yeeOn
========
An extensive revision of my previous post follows:
In article <v185525rsobcrg9nh...@4ax.com>,
PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2006 09:33:42 -0700, "rst0...@yahoo.com"
><rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>come join us and help get alt.philosophy.confucianism
>>>started. lots of talk, few self-identifying confucians.
>>
>>It's a waste of time to talk about Confucius and his philosophy. Leave
>>it to history, and study it as history. Talk about today's philosophy,
>>not 2,500 year-old philosophy.
>
>Confuciaism has been practiced in China for more than 2000 years. You
>see it in action everyday. Unless you have something new to add or
>want to do an academic paper the recommendation is don't waste your
>time going over a path that has already been well troddeen.
It is a sad, sad, uninformed, and arrogant statement. It does not
bode well for the future of China or humanity.
In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
China wilt away.
I thought modern Chinese since the Boxer's Rebellion, but particularly
lo yeeOn
that it takes to bring you down the road to perdition.
To claim that
>confucianism in its root form can provide the guiding principles for
>remedying all these things
is to deny history. It was exactly Confucianism which did not remedy
China's ills.
It is exactly why modern Chinese intellectuals consider Confucianism
to be one of those cultural institutions that must be eradicated from
the people.
The May Fourth Movement marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism,
and a re-evaluation of Chinese cultural institutions, such as
Confucianism. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Treaty of Versailles settlement and the effect of the New Cultural
Movement.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement)
Apostle Paul's view about woman tells us that he was bound by the
culture and history of his time. Fortunately, Jesus never gave any
such foolish command to the people he wanted to save. This
distinguishes Paul from Jesus in the most fundamental way possible.
The other side of the coin is that many causes can afflict our health.
And some cause might afflict some people. Another cause might afflict
another set of people. Showing that there is another cause to a
disease does not invalidate the first cause.
So, even if bound feet did not begin with Confucius, I took pains to
talk about how a loving father and mother would allow their daughter
to suffer for years of the young woman's best part of her life because
it was to them the ``right thing'' for the girl. This was repeated by
millions and millions of loving parents through generations, all
because they were taught a certain mindset - that everyone has his
pre-ordained place in a society and obedience is the way
Finally, you might blissfully advocate that humanity should follow
Confucianism to attain a harmonious world. The world would simply
laugh and hope that the stupid Chinese would regress to their former
defenseless self.
The path of being ignoramuses, knowing only the rules and rituals of
Confucianism but nothing about logic and mechanics, was the path that
was tried and failed for China.
The PNAC warriors would love to have a China fully Confucianized so
that they can just walk in and make people of that land slaves. Learn
to be aware of the PNAC agenda. (See the appended article by Michael
Melcher, former Environmental Minister of Tony Blair's cabinet.)
My post has carefully addressed the ill effects of Confucianism and
its consequences on the Chinese people. How can you disagree when
foreigners walk in knowing how to do calculus while you are talking
phony harmony, not to mention that Confucius was a hypocrite of the
first order who cared nothing for the poor people who couldn't defend
themselves? Confucianism is about defend an institution. It is about
keeping the powers that be in power and the denizens, slaves.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <pv3g5216sarro5oeh...@4ax.com>,
This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688,00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>that doesn't mean that Confucianism didn't cause great harm to China for thousands of years.
Your parents must have whupped you good when you were very little.
Looks like they are still whupping you good for you to believe that
your misery goes back to Confucius himself.
Lets concede to you have a valid beef. So what have you got in its
place that will make China one big happy hutong in the sky?
ltlee1
lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <qc0f52hgtlbhf7c1m...@4ax.com>,
> PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:09:25 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In those 2000+ years, Confucianism caused the practice of bound feet
> >>for women, the indulgence of the notion of supremacy for the male
> >>members in the family, the stagnation of the society, the contempt for
> >>systematic thought, the unjustified hubris toward the outside world,
> >>including Mother Nature. It thrived while its suffocating weight made
> >>China wilt away.
> >
> >
> >You don't have a clue as to what Confucianism is about to even begin
> >to discuss it. The next piece of advice is to throw away the
> >dictionary. You use difficult words and ideas without knowing their
> >meaning or usage and in circumstances that have little to do with the
> >subject. All you have done so far is to expose your unhappiness with
> >much that was wrong with Chinese traditional practices and confuse
> >that with Confucius' teachings and practice.
>
> Hurling one insult after another does not make your claim any more
> valid.
May be you find the other poster rude. I, however, kind of agree with
him. Appearantly you don't have a clue on what confucianism is about.
> In fact, you made claims about your own knowledge without
> evidence but rather with contradiction. (Essentially, you claimed to
> be a practising ``confucian'' without knowing what Confucianism is.
> It sounds a free-wheeling kind of thing to me.) I have a lot of
> respect for your parents; but that doesn't mean that Confucianism
> didn't cause great harm to China for thousands of years.
I beg to differ. I think confucianism had done China good things. The
neo-confucianism, however, did take the idea of from rendao to tiandao
too seriously. There arguements were not unlike the Christian
arguements between salvation by work and salvation by grace.
Please tell what has been well-established for about 100 years. Many of
the participant knew littel about the world. Not because of
confucianism, but because of circumstances.
>
> That's why I took the trouble to post the preamble from a reputed
> source at the second time.
>
> The May Fourth Movement marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism,
> and a re-evaluation of Chinese cultural institutions, such as
> Confucianism. The movement grew out of dissatisfaction with the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Treaty of Versailles settlement and the effect of the New Cultural
> Movement.
>
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement)
>
> The more you are trying to suppress the information and arguments I
> presented, the more I feel the need that Chinese and non-Chinese alike
> need to know the damage Confucianism has done to China and thwarted
> progress for all humanity, allowing such an atrocious disaster to
> happen as the Imperial Japanese invasion and occupation in the first
> part of the 1900s.
I don't think you had presented anything. For instance you hadn't
establish the linkage between China's weakness with specific aspect of
Confucian teaching.
>
> Even now, China is nowhere near where the revitalized Japan was in the
> 1930s (as explained in detail in my previous posts).
In what ways China now are nowhere near where the revitalized Japan was
in the 1930s?
What is the factual basis of your conclusion? Japan in the 1930 were
outright imperialist. Japanese imperialism, needless to say, great
suffering and destruction for Japan and her neighbors.
Albert K. Fung
> Finally, you might blissfully advocate that humanity should follow
> Confucianism to attain a harmonious world. The world would simply
> laugh and hope that the stupid Chinese would regress to their former
> defenseless self.
>
> The path of being ignoramuses, knowing only the rules and rituals of
> Confucianism but nothing about logic and mechanics, was the path that
> was tried and failed for China.
A harmonious world ....
Is not at issue. Rather, it is about at what cost. There
were, naturally, political and social reasons for hold-
ing the Confucian school in sole esteem, dismissing
the other hundred worthy schools.
The influential Mohist school suffered an abrupt end.
Of all the pre-Qin schools, the Moshists were perhaps
the most intellectually influential. They advanced the
earliest conception of consequentialism known to the
Chinese civilization and built their code of ethics and
morality on sound utilitarian principles.
Regrettably, enlightened individuals were not reliable
building block to build an imperial empire. And the Han
monarch had the political accument to understand the
importance and the necessity of ideological control: A
powerful empire needed peace and harmony. The Qin
penchant for ruthless rule-by-law caused wide spread
resentment and met an early death. The Confucianists'
proclivity for social harmony through order, rituals, self
cultivation and piety was a godsent: much more subtle
control via ideologies and behavior reinforcement. With
that underpinning, the Celestial Empire was born. And a
brilliant civilization was enabled.
But with a sacrificial lamb - the individual ....
Regard,
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>(Essentially, you claimed to be a practising ``confucian'' without knowing what Confucianism is.
>It sounds a free-wheeling kind of thing to me.)
It crossed my mind that I am in very good company. For 2000 years
since Confucius was adopted as China's state orthodoxy (Han Dynasty)
only very few Chinese were literate. Of these even a smaller number,
those who aspired to be officials, received any instruction in
Confucianism. A miniscule number could pass the Imperial Exams as
proof that they knew enough of the subject to call themselves
scholars. The dumb ordinary Chinese just had to get along in life as
best as he could.
To carry this reasoning to its logical end that means 99.9 per cent of
the population at any time during that 2000 years could not have been
practising Confucianism because they could not have known what the
heck it was in the first place. Therefore what is the basis of your
complaint about Confucianism having caused China's backwardness, etc.
if the great mass of unwashed unschooled peasants could not have been
Confucian in your book.
On the converse side you have attributed many sins in Chinese society
to Confucius. Your example: Foot binding is one claim that grabs
everyone's mind. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_feet
The practice of foot binding began during the Tang Dynasty (618–907
AC). Now Confucius (Chinese ???, transliterated Kong Fuzi or
K'ung-fu-tzu, literally "Master Kong", traditionally September 28, 551
BCE–479 BCE) was a famous Chinese thinker and social philosopher,
whose teachings deeply influenced East Asian life and thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius .
We accept that Master Kong's influence had grown since his death in
479 BCE. But for him to anticipate foot binding as a canon in his
teachings, a practice that did not take hold till a thousand years
later (to 618 AD), you have confered upon him supernatural powers of
prophecy he never claimed for himself.
Mr. On. Do yourself a favor. Read the thumbnail sketch of Confucius'
life in Wikipedia first in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius.
Get a basic idea of what Confucian thought and practice is. Then come
back and provide a better argument why we should listen to your rants.
lechergod
communism.
Confucianism monopolizes royalty to power for corrupt officials, as the
demand from CCP, but Communism monopolize also the economics to facilitate
the corruption to go on further.
that is why people under Communism are more poor than under Confucianism.
ltlee1 wrote:
---
shazi
I believe the Han had much of it right. it was throught the
syncretism of the 100 schools, pulling together the right
blend of behaviour and ideology. The result was not purely
confucian, daoist, mohist, yingyangist, but rather, something
that remains in the uniquely chinese worldview to this day.
yet it remains under the surface.
in some respects, china has just gone through a period
like the Qin: a burning of the past in favor of specific ideology.
what is needed is a revival of the Han spirit. It will not take
the form of reviving the moribund system of control, but
rather, a secular ideology with behaviour reinforcement,
as you say. The Han and later empires used the name
'confucius' as a legitimiser of whatever they desired to
enforce upon tianxia in his name. Some worked, others,
well... I'm suggesting that the legitimacy of Han/Confucian
values can provide a framework, a set of guiding principals
or paradigms for a celestial society.
this is not to imply a return to empire, or to subjugation.
rather, to investigate and explore confucianism in the light
of history, and to reinterpret the paradigms into a more
relevant and effective worldview. For example, Confucius
and Mencius (moreso) taught that rulers were subject to
the "mandate from heaven". Today, we hardly subscribe
to Heaven having a direct say into who has the right to
rule. Instead, the "mandate from heaven" has and should
become a mandate from the people. When a ruler violates
that mandate, then the people should and must remove
such a ruler. confucian principles of propriety and loyalty
must never be a cause for subjugation; but rather, as
confucius said many times, respect must be earned and
freely offered.
confucian ideologies interpreted in this light offer tremendous
redeeming social value. in the west, the care for the elderly
will be at a crisis in a few years as a large population of
'baby boomers' place strains upon a government-based
system of support. Do the children of these baby-boomers
care? not in the least.
i am not saying that confucian rules of filial obligation should
replace public policy for social security. on the contrary,
confucianism should not be the *law* of the land, but
rather, the guidelines and paradigms for establishing that
policy, whatever the specific implementation.
lechergod
all preachers can only be servicing such kings to get their good days,
that is why communist dog are servicing the CCP.
only the day of general voting in fully matured democracy comes, there can
be any preachers to give peoples' idiology.
---
Albert K. Fung
> this is not to imply a return to empire, or to subjugation.
> rather, to investigate and explore confucianism in the light
> of history, and to reinterpret the paradigms into a more
> relevant and effective worldview. For example, Confucius
> and Mencius (moreso) taught that rulers were subject to
> the "mandate from heaven". Today, we hardly subscribe
> to Heaven having a direct say into who has the right to
> rule. Instead, the "mandate from heaven" has and should
> become a mandate from the people. When a ruler violates
> that mandate, then the people should and must remove
> such a ruler. confucian principles of propriety and loyalty
> must never be a cause for subjugation; but rather, as
> confucius said many times, respect must be earned and
> freely offered.
The ideologies a la Mencius ....
Mandate of heaven and the doctrine of Yi, were major innovations
to Confucian political philosophy. It is a reflection that the eminent
gentleman recognized the need for checks-and-balances. Hence,
he proposed the seminal concepts of a benevolent heaven on one
hand and social justice on the other. For that, he was esteemed in
the Confucian school.
Mandate of the people is a consequence of Enlightenment thinking.
The social contract is, without any doubt, a crown jewel of Western
intellectual achievements, a natural corollary of the Lockean salient
political concept of individual rights. It is a concrete implementation
of the Mencian yearning for social justice and without its blind faith
on divine intervension. In that light and in today's context, admirable
intellectual curiosity aside.
Wherefor Confucianism ....
Regards,
PaPaPeng
Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
rights by introducing obscure concepts
On 4 May 2006 06:54:03 -0700, "Albert K. Fung" <akw...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
lechergod
Eisten won't need you to understand !!!!
only those with such level of english can be the audience,
they are not expecting a kintergarten lad as you to join in discuss.
---
rst0...@yahoo.com
PaPaPeng wrote:
> Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
> heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
> no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
> rights by introducing obscure concepts
>
First of all, I'd like to say that this is a discussion group for
people to express their views on subjects of common interest. Each of
us states our views on the subject either in agreement or disagreement,
may or may not present your own view on the subject. Unlike
mathematics, which has a finite solution, subjects like democracy,
philosophy and utopia, have different meanings to different people.
There is no need to call people names, or insult other people because
their view is different from yours. I am happy to say that I started
this discussion on Confucius teaching to be studied as history only,
and so many of you took part to express your viewpoints. My reason for
saying Confucius teaching tie China and its people to the past are:
1: His books were used as official examinations for government
positions to hold as the standards of knowledge. This practice was in
use for 2,000 years. As a result Chinese people are known as
"rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
this is true.
2: His definitions of relationship to people, communities, and nature
were complex, tedious, and time-consuming. Today, we just don't
have the time or the inclination to follow their protocols and
procedures. These protocols and procedures do not fit into today's
environment as time is money. Family relationship is not close-nit as
it was.
3: Knowledge of Confucius teaching does not provide for creativity,
but rather to keep in place, hence, tie China and the people to the
past when there was no progress made for the few thousand years.
4: Discussion, or the learning of philosophy is ideal talk of the
past, or the way to utopia as we know there is no utopia. As LT Lee
tried to find the meaning of "dao" or "li" or whatever
Confucius definition of it, today, who cares?
I could go on and on, but I have stated enough. PaPaPend mistaking his
western upbringing with sibling competition to achieve success through
education to his parents repeated referenced to Confucius teaching.
Chinese people who came from Guangdong province talked and learned
about Confucius teaching before 1949 in school, but never practiced
Confucianism because they practiced Buddhism.
shazi
> Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
> heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
> no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
> rights by introducing obscure concepts
i see you point. these are not obscure concepts,
but perhaps not as well known as they could be.
i apologise. simple language does help.
易則易知，简則易从。
easy means easy to know, simple means easy to follow.
-zicizhuan
ltlee1
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> PaPaPeng wrote:
> > Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
> > heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
> > no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
> > rights by introducing obscure concepts
> >
>
> First of all, I'd like to say that this is a discussion group for
> people to express their views on subjects of common interest. Each of
> us states our views on the subject either in agreement or disagreement,
> may or may not present your own view on the subject. Unlike
> mathematics, which has a finite solution, subjects like democracy,
> philosophy and utopia, have different meanings to different people.
> There is no need to call people names, or insult other people because
> their view is different from yours. I am happy to say that I started
> this discussion on Confucius teaching to be studied as history only,
> and so many of you took part to express your viewpoints. My reason for
> saying Confucius teaching tie China and its people to the past are:
>
> 1: His books were used as official examinations for government
> positions to hold as the standards of knowledge. This practice was in
> use for 2,000 years.
One of the purpose of official examinations is to select smart people.
Confician classics are as useful as other text for this purpose.
> As a result Chinese people are known as
> "rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
> this is true.
>
Nothing wrong with rote memory. For example, calculus is not difficult
conceptually. But if one want to be good, he needs to memorize a large
number of equations listed on the undercovers of every calculus
textbook.
> 2: His definitions of relationship to people, communities, and nature
> were complex, tedious, and time-consuming. Today, we just don't
> have the time or the inclination to follow their protocols and
> procedures. These protocols and procedures do not fit into today's
> environment as time is money. Family relationship is not close-nit as
> it was.
May be you need to learn more about conficianism.
>
> 3: Knowledge of Confucius teaching does not provide for creativity,
> but rather to keep in place, hence, tie China and the people to the
> past when there was no progress made for the few thousand years.
Creativity cannot be taught. It is up to the people.
>
> 4: Discussion, or the learning of philosophy is ideal talk of the
> past, or the way to utopia as we know there is no utopia.
Chinese is unique in one aspect. They don't about utopia until most
recently. Chinese people are pragmatic people. They don't fancy
utopia.
> As LT Lee
> tried to find the meaning of "dao" or "li" or whatever
> Confucius definition of it, today, who cares?
"Dao" or "li" are just shorthand for a body of knowledge. Conficianist
talk about dao or li just like modern physists talk about the unified
field. Physists study the nature of matter and force and etc.
Confucianist study the nature of people. For example, they try to
understand tiandao, "heaven's way", a short hand for a lot of social
and political problems.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>hakspeare's book is not to be read by moron as you !!!!!
>Eisten won't need you to understand !!!!
>only those with such level of english can be the audience,
>they are not expecting a kintergarten lad as you to join in discuss.
It will help everyone, especially yourself, if you first learn how to
spell and punctuate correctly.
rst0...@yahoo.com
ltlee1 wrote:
> rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > PaPaPeng wrote:
> > > Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
> > > heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
> > > no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
> > > rights by introducing obscure concepts
> > >
> >
> > First of all, I'd like to say that this is a discussion group for
> > people to express their views on subjects of common interest. Each of
> > us states our views on the subject either in agreement or disagreement,
> > may or may not present your own view on the subject. Unlike
> > mathematics, which has a finite solution, subjects like democracy,
> > philosophy and utopia, have different meanings to different people.
> > There is no need to call people names, or insult other people because
> > their view is different from yours. I am happy to say that I started
> > this discussion on Confucius teaching to be studied as history only,
> > and so many of you took part to express your viewpoints. My reason for
> > saying Confucius teaching tie China and its people to the past are:
> >
> > 1: His books were used as official examinations for government
> > positions to hold as the standards of knowledge. This practice was in
> > use for 2,000 years.
>
> One of the purpose of official examinations is to select smart people.
> Confician classics are as useful as other text for this purpose.
No, it did not select the best people. It selected people who learned
the past knowledge to apply at all time. It could not foster new
ideas, no creativity, therefore, tie China and its people to the same
day in and day out activities. In short, tie China and Chinese people
to the past.
>
> > As a result Chinese people are known as
> > "rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
> > this is true.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with rote memory.
No creativities, same thing all the time, same ideas, tie China to the
past.
> For example, calculus is not difficult
> conceptually. But if one want to be good, he needs to memorize a large
> number of equations listed on the undercovers of every calculus
> textbook.
As I said from the start, mathematics is finite. You can not compare
mathematics to religion, philosopphy, or believes. Even mathematics
required creativity to define the problem before you can solve it. BY
rote memory, there is way to resolve new problems as there were no past
experience to depend on.
>
> > 2: His definitions of relationship to people, communities, and nature
> > were complex, tedious, and time-consuming. Today, we just don't
> > have the time or the inclination to follow their protocols and
> > procedures. These protocols and procedures do not fit into today's
> > environment as time is money. Family relationship is not close-nit as
> > it was.
>
> May be you need to learn more about conficianism.
I know enough to discard it for today's environment.
>
> >
> > 3: Knowledge of Confucius teaching does not provide for creativity,
> > but rather to keep in place, hence, tie China and the people to the
> > past when there was no progress made for the few thousand years.
>
> Creativity cannot be taught. It is up to the people.
Yes, creativity depends on free thinking. Confucius teaching did not
allow free thinking..
> >
> > 4: Discussion, or the learning of philosophy is ideal talk of the
> > past, or the way to utopia as we know there is no utopia.
>
> Chinese is unique in one aspect. They don't about utopia until most
> recently. Chinese people are pragmatic people. They don't fancy
> utopia.
You're wrong. The whole philosophy of Confucius was about utopia, the
perfect state, the perfect ruler,...
>
> > As LT Lee
> > tried to find the meaning of "dao" or "li" or whatever
> > Confucius definition of it, today, who cares?
>
> "Dao" or "li" are just shorthand for a body of knowledge. Conficianist
> talk about dao or li just like modern physists talk about the unified
> field. Physists study the nature of matter and force and etc.
> Confucianist study the nature of people. For example, they try to
> understand tiandao, "heaven's way", a short hand for a lot of social
> and political problems.
"Heaven's way" in the spiritual way, not the physical way. Physics is
a physical science, not a spiritual study. New social and political
problems can not be learned from a Confucius textbook, rather learn
today's environment to solve today's problem. It requires foresight
into the problem, not into the Confucius teaching.
rst0...@yahoo.com
PaPaPeng wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:58:19 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
> wrote:
>
> >(Essentially, you claimed to be a practising ``confucian'' without knowing what Confucianism is.
> >It sounds a free-wheeling kind of thing to me.)
>
> It crossed my mind that I am in very good company. For 2000 years
> since Confucius was adopted as China's state orthodoxy (Han Dynasty)
Qin ShiHuang Di burned his books and buried Confucius Scholars. Liu
Bang, the man started the Han Dynasty was illiterate, He didn't use
Confucius teaching. Han Wu Di started using Confucius teaching from
130's BC down. After Han Wu Di, the Han Dynasty started to crumble.
Li Shimin of the Tang Dynasty was another strong leader. He encourged
Buddhism. Zhu Yuanzhang was a poor Buddhist monk who started the Ming
Dynasty. The dynasties started to crumble once they changed to
Confucianism. Study the Chinese history.
> only very few Chinese were literate. Of these even a smaller number,
> those who aspired to be officials, received any instruction in
> Confucianism. A miniscule number could pass the Imperial Exams as
> proof that they knew enough of the subject to call themselves
> scholars.
Memorized the Confucius textbooks to pass the examinations was by no
means proved they knew anything about society, rules of law, or
justice. There was no test for analytical skills which required to
solve problems.
> The dumb ordinary Chinese just had to get along in life as
> best as he could.
Confucius teaching was not for the ordinary people. It was for the
ruling class.
>
> To carry this reasoning to its logical end that means 99.9 per cent of
> the population at any time during that 2000 years could not have been
> practising Confucianism because they could not have known what the
> heck it was in the first place. Therefore what is the basis of your
> complaint about Confucianism having caused China's backwardness, etc.
> if the great mass of unwashed unschooled peasants could not have been
> Confucian in your book.
>
> On the converse side you have attributed many sins in Chinese society
> to Confucius. Your example: Foot binding is one claim that grabs
> everyone's mind. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_feet
> The practice of foot binding began during the Tang Dynasty (618-907
> AC). Now Confucius (Chinese ???, transliterated Kong Fuzi or
> K'ung-fu-tzu, literally "Master Kong", traditionally September 28, 551
> BCE-479 BCE) was a famous Chinese thinker and social philosopher,
ltlee1
Do you know what questions were asked? Have you looked them up the
subject before you reach any concludion?
Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. Let me us the analogy of
cooking. The scholars were like cooks given the same ingredient,
Confucianism. But they needed to cook creatively and tastefully to be
successful.
Anyway, your idea of confucianism tying China and its people to the
past is nonsensical. It sounds like a vacuuous accussation which can be
applied to everything one doesn't like.
> >
> > > As a result Chinese people are known as
> > > "rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
> > > this is true.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing wrong with rote memory.
>
> No creativities, same thing all the time, same ideas, tie China to the
> past.
Please be specific.
Otherwise I don't know what is your problem with rote memeory. For
example, remembering the multiplication table is rote memory. Are you
saying effort to memorize the multiplication is bad?
> > For example, calculus is not difficult
> > conceptually. But if one want to be good, he needs to memorize a large
> > number of equations listed on the undercovers of every calculus
> > textbook.
>
> As I said from the start, mathematics is finite.
Are you sure mathematics is finite? Or is it you inability to think
outside of the box?
> You can not compare
> mathematics to religion, philosopphy, or believes. Even mathematics
> required creativity to define the problem before you can solve it. BY
> rote memory, there is way to resolve new problems as there were no past
> experience to depend on.
Actually, many problems are only philosophical in the sense that people
have yet to define them correctly. Zeno's paradox is one such example.
Is Zeno's paradox a philosophical problem or a mathematical problem
concerning the conepts of limits?
> > > 2: His definitions of relationship to people, communities, and nature
> > > were complex, tedious, and time-consuming. Today, we just don't
> > > have the time or the inclination to follow their protocols and
> > > procedures. These protocols and procedures do not fit into today's
> > > environment as time is money. Family relationship is not close-nit as
> > > it was.
> >
> > May be you need to learn more about conficianism.
>
> I know enough to discard it for today's environment.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 3: Knowledge of Confucius teaching does not provide for creativity,
> > > but rather to keep in place, hence, tie China and the people to the
> > > past when there was no progress made for the few thousand years.
> >
> > Creativity cannot be taught. It is up to the people.
>
> Yes, creativity depends on free thinking. Confucius teaching did not
> allow free thinking..
"2 and 2 makes 4." In some sense we cannot think freely about "2 and 2"
and 4. We inevitably put a equal sign betwen them.. But it is so
because "2 and 2 makes 4" is useful.
If confucisan concepts also limit our thoughts, it is because such
concepts are useful.
Otherwise, no one can really limit how another person thinks.
> > > 4: Discussion, or the learning of philosophy is ideal talk of the
> > > past, or the way to utopia as we know there is no utopia.
> >
> > Chinese is unique in one aspect. They don't about utopia until most
> > recently. Chinese people are pragmatic people. They don't fancy
> > utopia.
>
> You're wrong. The whole philosophy of Confucius was about utopia, the
> perfect state, the perfect ruler,...
Sorry you are wrong. If you come across any confucian text which talk
about utopia comparable to Plato's Republic or Thomas Moore's Utopia,
please let me know.
> > > As LT Lee
> > > tried to find the meaning of "dao" or "li" or whatever
> > > Confucius definition of it, today, who cares?
> >
> > "Dao" or "li" are just shorthand for a body of knowledge. Conficianist
> > talk about dao or li just like modern physists talk about the unified
> > field. Physists study the nature of matter and force and etc.
> > Confucianist study the nature of people. For example, they try to
> > understand tiandao, "heaven's way", a short hand for a lot of social
> > and political problems.
>
> "Heaven's way" in the spiritual way, not the physical way. Physics is
> a physical science, not a spiritual study. New social and political
> problems can not be learned from a Confucius textbook, rather learn
> today's environment to solve today's problem. It requires foresight
> into the problem, not into the Confucius teaching.
1. "Heaven's way is not the spiritual way."
2. Are there new problems?
Yes and no. Fukuyama had written The End of History. Not that history
had ended. Rather he meant the evolution of political systems has reach
an end. Some one had also written a book describing the end of
sciences. Not that we don't have anymore problems. Rather, he meants we
know the fundamentals of sciences enough such that we can handle the
new problems.
Social problems and political problems reflect human nature which is
the result of millions of years of evolution and not changing
relatively speaking. Not in our time frame. Confucianism stakes out a
position on this human nature such as human nature is good. Scholars
such as Menzi then start looking deeper into human nature and decided
that what is needed for a harmonious society. You are welcome to
disagree with confucian concepts. However, one thing is clear. China
which put these concepts into work pass the test of time. In contrast,
no one could put the concept of western democracy which originated by
ancient Greeks into work on the level of a nation until about three
hundreds years ago.
rst0...@yahoo.com
How many answers can you get from a mathematicial problem? The answer
is 1 and only 1. If a mathematicial problem has many solutions, the
application of science and engineering can not stand.
PaPaPeng
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > First of all, I'd like to say that this is a discussion group for
>> > people to express their views on subjects of common interest. Each of
>> > us states our views on the subject either in agreement or disagreement,
>> > may or may not present your own view on the subject. Unlike
>> > mathematics, which has a finite solution, subjects like democracy,
>> > philosophy and utopia, have different meanings to different people.
>> > There is no need to call people names, or insult other people because
>> > their view is different from yours. I am happy to say that I started
>> > this discussion on Confucius teaching to be studied as history only,
>> > and so many of you took part to express your viewpoints. My reason for
>> > saying Confucius teaching tie China and its people to the past are:
>> >
>> > 1: His books were used as official examinations for government
>> > positions to hold as the standards of knowledge. This practice was in
>> > use for 2,000 years.
>>
>> One of the purpose of official examinations is to select smart people.
>> Confician classics are as useful as other text for this purpose.
>
>No, it did not select the best people. It selected people who learned
>the past knowledge to apply at all time. It could not foster new
>ideas, no creativity, therefore, tie China and its people to the same
>day in and day out activities. In short, tie China and Chinese people
>to the past.
PPP: It did select the best people. The objective of those
examinations was to recruit the best brains for the government of
empire. Succeeding to the highest level exams was better than
striking a lottery - wealth and great honor to family and village,
post-life respect in the clan altar. The British and Europeans liked
the idea so much that they adopted the Chinese Civil Service Exams
system in toto. The British in particular valued polymaths, people
with impractical degrees in history, languages, literature, etc. where
groomed for and given high office.
Novelty, invention and practical arts (work with one's hands) were
not valued or rewarded. You (alphabetman) are old enough to remember
that, until the tech boom of the 90s, engineers and technicians were
rarely ever in the management elite. They were often treated as the
hired help to solve probloems dreamt up by those arty dilettantes who
populated the management offices. So the rote learning route of
Confucian Classics to high office in traditional China persisted.
However Chinese creativity was always present. Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham
[Joseph Terence Montgomery Needham (December 9, 1900 – March 24, 1995)
was a British biochemist but was best known as a pre-eminent authority
on the history of Chinese science. In China, he is known mainly by his
Chinese name Li Yuese (???;Pinyin: Li Yuesè: Wade-Giles: Li Yüeh-Sê).
He pioneered the Western academic recognition of China's scientific
past with the ongoing, monumental Science and Civilisation in China
Series (SCC, also known as History of Science in China in some Asian
sources). This encyclopaedic opus magum revealed the historical
development of Chinese science. Needham's Grand Question was raised
about stagnation of China's technological development.]
>>
>> > As a result Chinese people are known as
>> > "rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
>> > this is true.
>> >
PPP: I won't defend this. But I do wish I did have the ability to
rote learn. Its so hard for me to remember things. When I come up
with a good idea I often have only a vague memory and have to reread
the stuff. It would have been so much easier and productive to have
all that info at the snap of my finger.
In a belated defence, rote learning does have solid value. Most
people are not capable of original thought. But if you have a good
memory of precedents, that is be a walking library, it is more than
enough to be a competent manager which is what all enterprises need
more than genuises. The trouble is that walking libraries get
promoted to power more readily than a person who comes up with a
bright idea now and then. But between solid management skills and
inventive flash in the pans solid management wins hands down any time.
This leads to the real defence of the Chinese system. We have the
longest continuous civilization in the world. Up till the age of
imperialism 200 years ago China was technically the most advanced, the
wealthiest and the most powerful empire in the world. This Empire
would not have been possible had China not invented, as far back as
Han times, the Imperial Civil Service System to run the empire. A
2000 year run of success is nothing to sniff at. So we had a 150 year
interregnum forced upon us. Our mistake in not adopting the arts of
science and technologies had been acknowledged and remedied.
Theoutcome? Read the professional journals where the lead authors have
mainland names. In a short 40 years since China sent her best
graduates abroad we have caught up in many fields of engineering,
science and technology and we are with the leading edge in some
fields.
An inquiring mind in education and in enterprise should be encouraged.
This is the accepted objective and practice in China's institutions
today. Enforced rote learning should be banned. But you cannot ban
students who resort to rote learning to pass that all important time
constrained exam. Exams is not the place for original thinking. But
exams is the event that determines your whole future.
The conclusions so far are that there is much logic in the traditional
Chinese systems. Your argument that they are all outdated and
detrimental to the modernization of China and therefore be dumped post
haste doesn't stand up to analysis. The traditional practices do
have many faults. But these can be corrected and have been. The core
of the traditional practices remain because there is much there is
valid in them.
PaPaPeng
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Confucius teaching was not for the ordinary people. It was for the
>ruling class.
In that case your problem is easy to solve. Kill the elite andall
the intellectuals. Now where did we hear that before?
demor...@aol.com
shazi wrote:
> PaPaPeng wrote:
> > Yoh, Shazi and yourself (Albert) are using arguments way over the
> > heads of everyone. Simple language (English) please. Else you have
> > no audience except each of you trying to outdo the other on bragging
> > rights by introducing obscure concepts
>
> i see you point. these are not obscure concepts,
> but perhaps not as well known as they could be.
>
> i apologise. simple language does help.
>
> 易則易知，简則易从。
> easy means easy to know, simple means easy to follow.
> -zicizhuan
>
> -shazi
Don't dumb the discussion down just because Kelvin can't understand.
When Kelvin says "arguments [are] way over the heads of everyone," he
is speaking only for himself. I enjoy the reading the arguments in
their original and undiluted form ... where they belong.
rst0...@yahoo.com
It selected people who knew how to read and write and memorized the
Confucius classics. At that time, it was good enough but not the best.
> The objective of those
> examinations was to recruit the best brains for the government of
> empire.
You mean a few from a limited supply for a limited purpose.
> Succeeding to the highest level exams was better than
> striking a lottery - wealth and great honor to family and village,
> post-life respect in the clan altar.
Yes, this was true. But it did not mean the selected were the best.
> The British and Europeans liked
> the idea so much that they adopted the Chinese Civil Service Exams
> system in toto. The British in particular valued polymaths, people
> with impractical degrees in history, languages, literature, etc. where
> groomed for and given high office.
The European tests were entirely different from the Chinese Exam of
Confucius teaching. The Europeans use the current textbook with
current knowledge. The Chinese tests were test of Confucius teaching
as taught 2,500 years ago, and in most cases, the test required
verbatum word for word. It was a test of the Confucius Classics word
for word as written in the Classics.
>
> Novelty, invention and practical arts (work with one's hands) were
> not valued or rewarded.
You hit it right on.
> You (alphabetman) are old enough to remember
> that, until the tech boom of the 90s, engineers and technicians were
> rarely ever in the management elite.
Not true. Chysler was a mechanic. Yet he started the Chysler Moter
Company. Look at Thomas Edison. He invented many things and started
GE. The list could go on and on.
> They were often treated as the
> hired help to solve probloems dreamt up by those arty dilettantes who
> populated the management offices. So the rote learning route of
> Confucian Classics to high office in traditional China persisted.
Yes, persisted and refused to take new ideas as new ideas over take
China, leaving China and its people back in the eighteenth century.
>
> However Chinese creativity was always present. Read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham
> [Joseph Terence Montgomery Needham (December 9, 1900 - March 24, 1995)
> was a British biochemist but was best known as a pre-eminent authority
> on the history of Chinese science. In China, he is known mainly by his
> Chinese name Li Yuese (???;Pinyin: Li Yuesè: Wade-Giles: Li Yüeh-Sê).
>
> He pioneered the Western academic recognition of China's scientific
> past with the ongoing, monumental Science and Civilisation in China
> Series (SCC, also known as History of Science in China in some Asian
> sources). This encyclopaedic opus magum revealed the historical
> development of Chinese science. Needham's Grand Question was raised
> about stagnation of China's technological development.]
>
> >>
> >> > As a result Chinese people are known as
> >> > "rote", memorizing everything, knowing nothing. History has proved
> >> > this is true.
> >> >
>
> PPP: I won't defend this. But I do wish I did have the ability to
> rote learn. Its so hard for me to remember things. When I come up
> with a good idea I often have only a vague memory and have to reread
> the stuff. It would have been so much easier and productive to have
> all that info at the snap of my finger.
>
> In a belated defence, rote learning does have solid value.
Yes, to pass college exams.
> Most
> people are not capable of original thought.
That's why we have to develop the capabilities of the ones who do have
the abilities.
> But if you have a good
> memory of precedents, that is be a walking library, it is more than
> enough to be a competent manager which is what all enterprises need
> more than genuises. The trouble is that walking libraries get
> promoted to power more readily than a person who comes up with a
> bright idea now and then. But between solid management skills and
> inventive flash in the pans solid management wins hands down any time.
>
> This leads to the real defence of the Chinese system. We have the
> longest continuous civilization in the world. Up till the age of
> imperialism 200 years ago China was technically the most advanced, the
> wealthiest and the most powerful empire in the world.
In the Chinese world. Have you ever wondered what would be the result
if the Roman Empire came face to face with the Chinese Empire in
battle?
rst0...@yahoo.com
The problem is you people wanted to bring back the Confucius teaching
to use today.
PaPaPeng
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Novelty, invention and practical arts (work with one's hands) were
>> not valued or rewarded.
>
>You hit it right on.
>
>> You (alphabetman) are old enough to remember
>> that, until the tech boom of the 90s, engineers and technicians were
>> rarely ever in the management elite.
>
>Not true. Chysler was a mechanic. Yet he started the Chysler Moter
>Company. Look at Thomas Edison. He invented many things and started
>GE. The list could go on and on.
PPP: Chrysler, Edison, et al were self made men who were amply
rewarded for their ingenuity. There was a need for what they produced
in labor short America. They did not need to meet anyone's
expectations (exams.) One societal consequence ofr China to this day
is an over abundance of manual labor. For things that can be done by
hand, eg. farming and handicrafts, there was no need to invent labor
saving machines. Ergo very little were invented. But for certain
tasks where machines could do a better job (eg. the plough, the seded
drill, double acting pump,bridge building, the stern rudder, batten
sails and naval technologies) the Chinese invented and perfected them
more than a thousand years before the Europeans did (ref. Joseph
Needham). The plethora of innovations that made Europe's
technological advance possible from the 1500s onwards very likely came
from China (Needham gave very compelling arguments). This "borrowing"
is now reversed with a vengence as any western technology being
applied in China is quickly learned and often improved on. Have
patience. We will have original inventions too. The technical skills
are there. The problem is to define an original or fundamental
problem. Then a solution can be found to solve that. This kind of
thinking require leisure time and freedom from the immediate need to
make a living to muse on improbable ideas.
PPP: First things first. One cannot be an engineer unless one gets
into university first. Aka pass an exam. The odds of someone
tinkering in garage to come up with a ground breaking idea is
infinitesminal. Even the inspired amateur has to learn the basic
tools of techology first, such as how to program or practical
electronics. You won't have to design a chip. But you still must
know their functionality and how to wire them to other chips to
produce a desired result. On biotechnology it is impossible to work
in this field unless one has a university education (exams again).
>
>> Most people are not capable of original thought.
>
>That's why we have to develop the capabilities of the ones who do have
>the abilities.
Applicable mostly for those who are capable of PhD level education -
exams again.
>
>> But if you have a good
>> memory of precedents, that is be a walking library, it is more than
>> enough to be a competent manager which is what all enterprises need
>> more than genuises. The trouble is that walking libraries get
>> promoted to power more readily than a person who comes up with a
>> bright idea now and then. But between solid management skills and
>> inventive flash in the pans solid management wins hands down any time.
>>
>> This leads to the real defence of the Chinese system. We have the
>> longest continuous civilization in the world. Up till the age of
>> imperialism 200 years ago China was technically the most advanced, the
>> wealthiest and the most powerful empire in the world.
>
>In the Chinese world. Have you ever wondered what would be the result
>if the Roman Empire came face to face with the Chinese Empire in
>battle?
A whole new subject here. The distances involved guaranteed they
never met. I used to be very interested in warfare. Anyway the Romans
were very conservative militarily and in many things else. Roman
military tactics depended on the maintenance of a solid front in face
of a undisciplined charge from tribal foes. In a clash of
contemporary armies (Roman-Chinese) I would believe the Chinese would
have a technical edge in having the crossbow that can strike at a
distance. Read Sun Tzu. Chinese armies were already very disciplined
2500 years ag. With battle casualties in the tens of thousands per
battle contemporary Chinese forces would have overwhelmed any Roman
army.
>
Some notes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army
What made the Romans effective versus so many skilled opponents?
The basic structure and operation of the Roman military is generally
well known from countless books, writings and films, particularly the
legion, its officers, fortified camps and other features. Less well
known is what made the Romans so effective a force over almost 1,000
years, particularly since the Romans encountered several other able
opponents and lost so many battles over the course of their hegemony.
The popular film "Gladiator" presents a typical picture of Roman
invincibility, complete with wild Germanic hordes that were quickly
crushed. But in fact, Rome lost numerous battles to such "wild"
hordes. One of the greatest, (the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest) saw
the liquidation of three imperial legions and was to spark a limit on
Roman expansion in the west. And it was these hordes in part (most
having some familiarity with Rome and its culture) that were to bring
about the Roman military's final demise in the West.
As far as cavlary opponents, Roman performance was also sometimes less
than sterling. The core of Roman Army was infantry and when they faced
armies heavy with, or based on cavalry, they often encountered deep
problems. One classic case of course is Hannibal, but the Parthians
and light Dacian cavalry combined with heavy Sarmatian cavalry gave
the legions more than a run for their money.
Several of Rome's other military campaigns hardly show sustained
invincibility or dazzling genius. Indeed Roman performance in many
battles was unimpressive, and learning time seemed extended. As far as
ambushes for example, (such as the disaster in the Teutoburg) Roman
forces seemed to have a penchant for falling into them repeatedly, as
proved centuries earlier at Lake Trasimene. Over the course of the
empire, they were out-generaled by Hannibal (during the early years of
the Second Punic War) and suffered a number of other severe defeats by
opponents like the Parthians. And yet, over time, the Romans not only
bounced back, but for the most part eventually crushed or neutralized
their enemies. How then did they do it against a variety of enemies
that were, at various times and places, more numerous, more skilled or
better led?
PaPaPeng
> I enjoy the reading the arguments in
>their original and undiluted form ... where they belong.
That's a delightful offer. Do enlighten us as to what was being said.
I'll be the first to admit that the discussion is way over my head.
With luck we may receive a few pearls of your wisdom too.
demor...@aol.com
I made no offer to translate the discussion for you. I said I enjoy
reading the arguments as written. I did not claim that I already know
everything in the arguments.
lechergod
even in primary school, it is learnt :
the root of a figure is at least two : positive or negative,
how can the answer is only 1.
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How many answers can you get from a mathematicial problem? The answer
> is 1 and only 1. If a mathematicial problem has many solutions, the
> application of science and engineering can not stand.
>
>
---
lechergod
you mis-applied the principle to newsgroup discussion !!!
shazi wrote:
---
lechergod
what you need is none of my consideration !!!
PaPaPeng wrote:
---
lechergod
the crux is as mao said : serving to whom !!!!!
confucism serves imperalism,
this communist dog rst0wxyz serves CCP for corruption under monopolization
even to economic field !!!
all the two are squeezing chinese peoples !!!
more shameful is to see the words : 'peoples' reuplic' !!
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
---
PaPaPeng
Aw demo. You are just too modest. Surely its not too much for us to
ask you to share your insights into the subject. Allow us to enjoy
the discussion too. Surely Confucius would approve.
shazi
>Qin ShiHuang Di burned his books and buried Confucius Scholars.
and adopted proto-daoist alchemy and died by ingesting mercury.
his incompetent son caused the disintegration of the qin.
a great example of a confucian success story, eh?
>Liu Bang, the man started the Han Dynasty was illiterate, He didn't use
>Confucius teaching. Han Wu Di started using Confucius teaching from
>130's BC down. After Han Wu Di, the Han Dynasty started to crumble.
Confucianism rose prior to the institutionalisation of rujia
by wudi. the disintegration of the han was due to incompetence
and corruption, and during the downfall, the confucians decried
the official corruption.
confucianism does not ensure competent leadership, and hereditary
monarchies inherently fail due to incompetence and corruption.
you are stating a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
you have not cited even the remotest proof that rujia was the
cause of the fall of the han, only that the downfall occurred
roughly at the same time: that is no proof.
>
>Li Shimin of the Tang Dynasty was another strong leader. He encourged
>Buddhism. Zhu Yuanzhang was a poor Buddhist monk who started the Ming
>Dynasty. The dynasties started to crumble once they changed to
>Confucianism.
and the sung was based upon neo-confucianism.
The hongwu emperor/founer of the ming based a 300 year empire on
the core principles of confucianism. your correlation is wrong.
>Study the Chinese history.
please do.
shazi
>How many answers can you get from a mathematicial problem?
>The answer is 1 and only 1.
there are many mathematical problems where there are
multiple answers.
one simple example. y = x^2; solve for x where y=4.
there are myriad more examples as well. in addition,
there are entire fields of mathematics that are either
unsolveable or heuristic; hence: zero answers.
>If a mathematicial problem has many solutions, the
>application of science and engineering can not stand.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh?
fyf...@gmail.com
the past."
This does not seem to be true in view of what Confucius in one of his
idoms said:"If I could make good money by being a chauffeur, I would
not mind doing it." At that time, being a chauffeur was the bottom job
in a society. This shows you how pragmatic Confucius and his
philosophy were! Confucius was a typical capitalist and his
entrepeurial spirit impresses us all.
fyf...@gmail.com
once the older people are gone.
rst0...@yahoo.com
> "rst0...@yahoo.com" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >How many answers can you get from a mathematicial problem?
> >The answer is 1 and only 1.
>
> there are many mathematical problems where there are
> multiple answers.
>
> one simple example. y = x^2; solve for x where y=4.
OK, give me more than 1 answer for this problem.
>
> there are myriad more examples as well. in addition,
> there are entire fields of mathematics that are either
> unsolveable or heuristic; hence: zero answers.
If it is unsolvable, there is no mathematical theorem. Therefore it is
not a mathematical problem. It's a research project.
>
> >If a mathematicial problem has many solutions, the
> >application of science and engineering can not stand.
>
> a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh?
It stands.
rst0...@yahoo.com
> "rst0...@yahoo.com" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Qin ShiHuang Di burned his books and buried Confucius Scholars.
>
> and adopted proto-daoist alchemy and died by ingesting mercury.
His fear of being assassinated caused him to seek eternal life which
was and is impossible.
> his incompetent son caused the disintegration of the qin.
Yes, this is not the question.
>
> a great example of a confucian success story, eh?
No, a great success of a great man which didn't want Confucius teaching
in his kingdom. Confucius teaching can not save him in any case.
>
> >Liu Bang, the man started the Han Dynasty was illiterate, He didn't use
> >Confucius teaching. Han Wu Di started using Confucius teaching from
> >130's BC down. After Han Wu Di, the Han Dynasty started to crumble.
>
> Confucianism rose prior to the institutionalisation of rujia
> by wudi. the disintegration of the han was due to incompetence
> and corruption, and during the downfall, the confucians decried
> the official corruption.
The downfall of humanity, greet, lust, individual ambition for wealth
the easy way, to steal.
>
> confucianism does not ensure competent leadership, and hereditary
> monarchies inherently fail due to incompetence and corruption.
Correct.
>
> you are stating a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
> you have not cited even the remotest proof that rujia was the
> cause of the fall of the han, only that the downfall occurred
> roughly at the same time: that is no proof.
There is no proof Confucius teaching help, either.
> >
> >Li Shimin of the Tang Dynasty was another strong leader. He encourged
> >Buddhism. Zhu Yuanzhang was a poor Buddhist monk who started the Ming
> >Dynasty. The dynasties started to crumble once they changed to
> >Confucianism.
>
> and the sung was based upon neo-confucianism.
>
> The hongwu emperor/founer of the ming
Hong Wu himself was a Buddhist monk from the very beginning. He did
not follow Confucius teaching.
> based a 300 year empire on
> the core principles of confucianism. your correlation is wrong.
Confucius teaching has no place in today's society. Leave it to the
history book.
2,500 year-old ideas can not possibly be any help to today's fast lane
life.
rst0...@yahoo.com
You're making this up. Besides, he could not even find a job.
PaPaPeng
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Confucius teaching has no place in today's society. Leave it to the
>history book. 2,500 year-old ideas can not possibly be any help to today's fast lane
>life.
I agree with you only so far as Confucianism should not be taught in
schools as a state philosophy or religion. It should however be
taught in comparative religion or in a comparative philosophy course.
The human desire for a higher purpose in life is universal. While
they are still young and idealistic, the questions asked and the
answers given must be addressed when these young minds are ready to
receive them . We must provide their minds with the material with
which they can make their choices. Banning studies, in particular
Confucianism in Chinese schools, only leave a gaping hunger for this
kind of knowledge. Its all around them and they do not know what it
is. This will be badly filled by an undirected mind that picks up
scraps of whatever drops their way. That is how you get bigotry and
a corruption of the true teachings of any philosophy or religion.
Confucianism is about "His philosophy emphasised personal and
governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice
and sincerity. " This is as relevant today as the day he first taught
them. It has nothing to do with how to make a living, fast lane or
slow.
lechergod
i can't see such a methematical moron !!!
even primary pupil knows there were two answers.
is this moron is still in kintergarten ?????
rst0...@yahoo.com wrote:
---
shazi
>shazi wrote:
>> "rst0...@yahoo.com" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How many answers can you get from a mathematicial problem?
>> >The answer is 1 and only 1.
>>
>> there are many mathematical problems where there are
>> multiple answers.
>>
>> one simple example. y = x^2; solve for x where y=4.
>
>OK, give me more than 1 answer for this problem.
two answers: 2 and -2.
QED.
fyf...@gmail.com
said is true.
shazi
you make a big deal that he did not find a job
as imperial advisor. so what? this aspiration
was early on in his life. by his later years,
he had an immense following of disciples, including
royalty who refused to publicly acknowledge him
whilst living, but mourned him once dead.
the fact that he did not find the job he initially
sought is no proof that his teachings were invalid.
this is a classic ad hominem fallacy and irrelevant.
besides, i am not sure we disagree at core.
do you think the core values of confucianism are irrelevant today?