Translation?
ChrisC
Thanks.
--
"A tree the size of a fathom grows from a blade as thin as a hair.
A tower nine stories high is built from a small heap of earth.
A journey of a thousand miles starts in front of your feet."
The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.
/(o\
\o)/
ChrisC - chri...@spamless.yahoo.co.uk
<o >
http://terebess.hu/english/tao/lau.html
and this is a favourite
http://nothingistic.org/library/laotzu/
(but Legge was a missionary and
nobody likes that position anymore)
"ChrisC" <chri...@spamless.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m9cl905l6u9rva5eu...@4ax.com...
Imp
>
> Thanks.
>
>
You could try "Tao Teh Ching translated by John C. H. Wu"
{8-])))
>Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
What criteria would you use
in order to determine how true one is?
>Thanks.
The one that sounds most true to you
will be the one that sounds most true to you.
Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
'A passage from Chapter 2 indicates this attitude:
"Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you
have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are
you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?
If I have beaten you instead of your beating me,
then am I necessarily right and are you
necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the
other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of
us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then
other people are bound to be even more in the
dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?
Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can
he decide fairly?…Obviously, then, neither you nor
I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
p.43)'
http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
Erik
"ChrisC" <chri...@spamless.yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:m9cl905l6u9rva5eu...@4ax.com...
> Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
Your own.
ChrisC
>Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
>
No.
>'A passage from Chapter 2 indicates this attitude:
>"Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you
>have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are
>you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?
>If I have beaten you instead of your beating me,
>then am I necessarily right and are you
>necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the
>other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of
>us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then
>other people are bound to be even more in the
>dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?
>Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
>decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can
>he decide fairly?…Obviously, then, neither you nor
>I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
>wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
>p.43)'
>http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
I will after reading that.
Rexx Magnus
> The one that sounds most true to you
> will be the one that sounds most true to you.
>
> Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
>
> 'A passage from Chapter 2 indicates this attitude:
> "Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you
> have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are
> you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?
> If I have beaten you instead of your beating me,
> then am I necessarily right and are you
> necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the
> other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of
> us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then
> other people are bound to be even more in the
> dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?
> Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
> decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can
> he decide fairly?.Obviously, then, neither you nor
> I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
> wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
> p.43)'
> http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
>
One thing that is a prime example of that, is in most of the translations
is the reference to "ten thousand things" - yet numerous books on chinese
characters often say that it is too strict a definition, and that the
character used to represent that also means 'myriad' or 'everything' (in
the way that saying lots of things would). So not everything in the TTC
should be taken as a literal metaphor, otherwise we end up with rather
meaningless numbers instead of the intended concept.
To email me, visit the site.
Miller Jew
"{8-])))" jay@home wrote:
Chris wrote:
>
>Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
J
>What criteria would you use
>in order to determine how true one is?
>
>Thanks.
J
>The one that sounds most true to you
>will be the one that sounds most true to you.
Yes. There is that growing. And this is the evolution of a being. Even though
what is experienced to be true at one time is no longer true later, this builds
the depth of understanding life and it's expansive integrating.
J
>Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
>
>'A passage from Chapter 2 indicates this attitude:
>"Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you
>have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are
>you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?
>If I have beaten you instead of your beating me,
>then am I necessarily right and are you
>necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the
>other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of
>us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then
>other people are bound to be even more in the
>dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?
>Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
>decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can
>he decide fairly?…Obviously, then, neither you nor
>I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
>wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
>p.43)'
>http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
Actually Jay, the end (and climax) of this story is missing in this htm. The
end question above is given its answer :-) "Harmonize them all with the
Heavenly Equalizer" and "forget (this) and forget (that)" BUT "Leap into the
boundless and make it your home!": ft.
unlurking:)
–Zhou
Ft: "....wait for still another person? But waiting for one shifting voice (to
pass judgment on) another is the same as waiting for none of them." Harmonize
them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless changes, and
so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the Heavenly
Father? Right is not right; so it is not so. If right were really right, it
would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for
argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that
there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions.
Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" Pg 44. "Discussions on Making
All Things Equal". "Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings" tr. Burton Watson.
bookburn
"Miller Jew" <zho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507123547...@mb-m05.aol.com...
| >I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
| >wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
| >p.43)'
| >http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
|
| Actually Jay, the end (and climax) of this story is missing in this
htm. The
| end question above is given its answer :-) "Harmonize them all with
the
| Heavenly Equalizer" and "forget (this) and forget (that)" BUT "Leap
into the
| boundless and make it your home!": ft.
|
| unlurking:)
|
| Ft: "....wait for still another person? But waiting for one shifting
voice (to
| pass judgment on) another is the same as waiting for none of them."
Harmonize
| them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless
changes, and
| so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the
Heavenly
| Father? Right is not right; so it is not so. If right were really
right, it
| would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need
for
| argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not
so that
| there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget
distinctions.
| Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" Pg 44. "Discussions
on Making
| All Things Equal". "Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings" tr. Burton Watson.
Looking up "boundless Taoism," I find:
Redirecting your attention
(Quotations from The Hua Hu Ching)
... the mind is desperate to fix the river {of events} in place:
Possessed by ideas of the past, preoccupied with images of the future,
it overlooks the plain truth of the moment.
(21)
...integral wisdom involves a direct participation in every moment:
the observer and the observed are dissolved in the light of pure
awareness, and no mental concepts or attitudes are present to dim that
light.
(26)
Do you think that you can clear your mind by sitting constantly in
silent meditation?
This makes your mind narrow, not clear. Integral awareness is fluid
and adaptable, present in all places and at all times. That is true
meditation... The Tao is clear and simple, and it doesn't avoid the
world.
(52)
... learn to value what is important today in the subtle realm rather
than what appears desirable tomorrow in the worldly realm.
(60)
When you accurately perceive the fluidity of things, you can also
begin to perceive the constancy behind them: the creative,
transformative, boundless, immutable Tao.
(64)
©1999 by Deb Platt
|
|
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
news:tdql90l0jim1r1fgj...@4ax.com...
> Chris wrote:
>
> >Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
>
> What criteria would you use
> in order to determine how true one is?
>
> >Thanks.
>
> The one that sounds most true to you
> will be the one that sounds most true to you.
>
> Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
>
> 'A passage from Chapter 2 indicates this attitude:
> "Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you
> have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are
> you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?
> If I have beaten you instead of your beating me,
> then am I necessarily right and are you
> necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the
> other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of
> us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then
> other people are bound to be even more in the
> dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?
> Shall we get someone who agrees with you to
> decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can
> I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we
> wait for still another person?" (Basic Writings,
> p.43)'
> http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/zhuangzi.htm
certainly the one that sounds the truest
at any given time to any particular person
may not be the one that is most accurate
in translating the original intended meaning?
looking at the first part of ch.32,
'The Tao has no name, it is a cloud that has no shape'
(Kwok/Palmer/Ramsay)
'The Way is for ever nameless. though the uncarved block is small no one in
the world dare claim its allegiance'
(Lau)
'TAO is always nameless. Small as it is in its Primal Simplicity, It is
inferior to nothing in the world.'
(Wu)
'The Tao is forever undefined. Small though it is in the unformed state, it
cannot be grasped.'
(Feng/English)
'Dao as the eternal is unutterable simplicity. Even though it is small, the
world dare not make it it's serf.'
(Wilhelm)
THOU art eternally nameless. Because the un-hewn log is small, none care to
subjugate it.
(Mair)
The Tâo, considered as unchanging, has no name. Though in its primordial
simplicity it may be small, the whole world dares not deal with (one
embodying) it as a minister.
(Legge)
The first sentence is a repeat of ch.1
The first part of the second sentence seems to
be agreed upon (it is small and uncarved),
but the last part is obscure.
All translations agree with the sentence that follows,
which goes something like,
'If princes and kings could adopt the Way,
then all under heaven would spontaneously yield to them'
So what was really meant by the last part of the
second sentence?
ch.70 has a similar sequence of chinese characters
Legge translates it as 'there is no one in the world that is able'
Mair as 'no ego is able to'
Wilhelm as 'no one on earth can'
Feng/English as 'no one under heaven'
Wu as 'the world cannot'
Lau as 'no one in the world can'
KPR as 'no one can'
so what is it that no one in the world can do?
claim it's allegiance?
claim superiority over it?
grasp it?
make it their serf?
subjugate it?
dare deal with one who embodies it?
i find the same (last) character of the second
sentence used only in one other place, at the
very end of ch.18 when referring to loyal
subjects and devoted attendants of a state
that has lost the Way.
so the answer, imo, must be that since in it's
uncarved state it leaves nothing to grasp or
form an allegiance with, no one can succeed
in becoming it's attendant or loyal minister.
so although one can adopt the Way, one
cannot become it's attendant or minister
without straying from it.
it's working unceasingly for everyone and
everything, but the moment anyone tries
to put themselves in a special position
relative to it, or perform any duty or moral
function with respect to it, they have already
lost it (or more likely never had it)
{8-])))
>jay asserted:
>> The one that sounds most true to you ...
>One thing that is a prime example of that, is in most of the translations
>is the reference to "ten thousand things" - yet numerous books on chinese
>characters often say that it is too strict a definition, and that the
>character used to represent that also means 'myriad' or 'everything' (in
>the way that saying lots of things would). So not everything in the TTC
>should be taken as a literal metaphor, otherwise we end up with rather
>meaningless numbers instead of the intended concept.
Criteria
can be of the essence
in determining what is "most true"
with respect to a translation.
A transliteration,
as has been done here at times,
rings many a bell for some.
Attempting to be true to a spirit
might evoke a chime for others.
Lots of opt'ions.
{8-])))
> jay began:
>> chris wondered:
>>>Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
>>What criteria would you use
>>in order to determine how true one is?
>>Have you read the Chuang-tzu?
>unlurking:)
welcome back!
folks were asking bout ya.
>å¿™hou
counterpointinging is
all waze a pleasure.
>Ft: "....wait for still another person? ... If right were really right, it
slk...@juno.net
finding that one. So right off the bat, I'd assume translation preference to
be a very subjective matter.
Using a quality like the 'truest' seems to imply that you might wonder if
there's something being left out in the others. I'm not so sure that's
always the case. Not to say that bad translations don't exist, but language
is a very tricky thing. It's all about communicating through relationships,
which heavily dependent on context. If you have the energy to discover and
learn the context that would go into interpreting the 'truest' translation
from Chinese, I'd say you'd necessarily have already learned to understand
Chinese and may be ready to write your own translation.
Interestingly, there's a good essay in the book "Culture and Conflict" on
recounting the story of Hamlet to a tribe in Africa to test this possibility
of 'universal' understanding. It doesn't really exist, it turns out, because
we all get hung up on assumptions made by the author, stemming from his or
her environment, culture, etc. Add elapsed time to cultural differences, and
we're confronting a big issue when finding the 'perfect' translation.
Now, the Tao Te Ching is both simpler and more complex than Hamlet. I don't
mean to compare the two, only to point out that, even moreso when dealing
with subject matter like the Tao, the act of writing is itself a translation
of original thought, and the two 'mediums' for ideas, if we can call them
that, never transfer between each other very well.
So what is the truest translation? To me that asks for the translation
that's going to speak to me on a personal level and has the authority to
teach.
Finding a translation that speaks to you on a personal level might be
difficult. I don't know. I feel lucky, because the one I first read felt
perfect for me. I often think that if I picked up a different translation,
it might not have touched me the same way. Now days there are so many
different translations, I wouldn't know where to begin. Some downright suck,
and this is a good segway to the other aspect - the authority to teach.
A bad teacher is worse than no teacher. Here I might contradict myself -- Do
not teach if you are not qualified to be a teacher. Maybe that isn't
hypocrisy, because I know all about not being qualified to teach. :) Anyway,
I'm afraid that some of the translations I've read seem to be infected with
the translator's dubious interpretation of the subject matter -- they've
left the sterility of translating words and concepts to end up interpreting
the conclusions. This is dangerous stuff. Taking from a line in the Tao Te
Ching -- "the sage gives life but does not posess". Be careful of
translations that feed you conclusions.
So, techniques to find a good translation? Again, I struck gold with the
first one I picked up -- it was an old dusty book that hadn't been checked
out from the library in ten years, called the Wisdom of China and India,
which was a compendium of translated texts edited by Lin Yutang, including
the Upanishads, etc. The Tao Te Ching isn't a big text. One way I still
compare translations today is by looking up a chapter that I may be fond of,
and seeing how it's written in the new book. So this is sort of a
comparative analysis, but assumes you've already been 'struck' by a chapter
or two. Otherwise, talk to people you know and admire/like and see what
translations they use. That's probably a very good technique -- if you have
a mentor or know someone you respect who deeply charishes their fifty
year-old copy of whatever, it's probably a good bet that it will be a good
place to start. They'll also be able to participate in discussion about how
they interpret this line or that. I think being in discussions with someone
in this capacity is different than the pitfall of 'authority to teach'
mentioned earlier, because there's a dialog occurring off of a source.
Anyway, hope that helps...
"ChrisC" <chri...@spamless.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m9cl905l6u9rva5eu...@4ax.com...
{8-])))
> jay responded:
>> chris sought:
>>
>> >Whats the truest translation of the Tao Te Ching.
>>
>> What criteria would you use
>> in order to determine how true one is?
>certainly the one that sounds the truest
>at any given time to any particular person
>may not be the one that is most accurate
>in translating the original intended meaning?
This begs the quest'ion
of how to determine the original
intended meaning, eh?
What criteria would one use?
Is there one best criterion?
>looking at the first part of ch.32,
A translation
of the Chinese written characters
into English is: "dao chang wu ming."
What is the original intended meaning?
How can one determine such a thing?
>'The Tao has no name, it is a cloud that has no shape'
>(Kwok/Palmer/Ramsay)
>
>'The Way is for ever nameless.
"dao chang wu ming"
Now a better translation, imo,
would include inflections.
The four tones could eliminate
some confusion when writing pinyin.
> though the uncarved block is small
pu sui xiao.
>no one in
>the world dare claim its allegiance'
>(Lau)
tian xia ... ... ...
So, is Lau's the best?
>'TAO is always nameless. Small as it is in its Primal Simplicity, It is
>inferior to nothing in the world.'
>(Wu)
>
>'The Tao is forever undefined. Small though it is in the unformed state, it
>cannot be grasped.'
>(Feng/English)
>
>'Dao as the eternal is unutterable simplicity. Even though it is small, the
>world dare not make it it's serf.'
>(Wilhelm)
>
>THOU art eternally nameless. Because the un-hewn log is small, none care to
>subjugate it.
>(Mair)
>
>
>The Tâo, considered as unchanging, has no name. Though in its primordial
>simplicity it may be small, the whole world dares not deal with (one
>embodying) it as a minister.
>(Legge)
>
>
>
>
>The first sentence is a repeat of ch.1
I disagree;
"dao ke dao fei chang dao"
is not exactly the same as:
"dao chang wu ming."
>The first part of the second sentence seems to
>be agreed upon (it is small and uncarved),
Pu is uncarved, unhewn, simplicity, plainness,
innocence, same as in TTC 19. If you use
zhongwen.com, it has the first phrase of TTC 32
as: "dao chang wu ming pu." So does pu
belong with the last part of the first sentence
or was there a typographical error?
>but the last part is obscure.
So how can one determine
what translation is the best?
Ho-shang Kung's commentary is supposedly as
popular as Wang Pi's. Does that make it true?
He was translated as saying, '"The Tao can be yin
or yang, it can wax or wane, it can exist or not
exist. Hence it has no fixed name."'
'Su Ch'e says, "'Simple' means the natural state.
When it expands, it's everywhere. When it
contracts, it isn't as big as the tip of a hair.
Hence, even though it is small, it is beyond
anyone's command."
What the last part reminds me of
is akin to trying to grasp water with one's
fingertips. How small is water? How simple?
How uncarved can water be? Why use water?
>All translations agree with the sentence that follows,
>which goes something like,
>'If princes and kings could adopt the Way,
>then all under heaven would spontaneously yield to them'
>So what was really meant by the last part of the
>second sentence?
Water can be held
in the palm of one's hand
but nobody can command the ocean.
>ch.70 has a similar sequence of chinese characters
>Legge translates it as 'there is no one in the world that is able'
>Mair as 'no ego is able to'
>Wilhelm as 'no one on earth can'
>Feng/English as 'no one under heaven'
>Wu as 'the world cannot'
>Lau as 'no one in the world can'
>KPR as 'no one can'
>
>so what is it that no one in the world can do?
Nobody owns dao.
>claim it's allegiance?
>claim superiority over it?
>grasp it?
>make it their serf?
>subjugate it?
>dare deal with one who embodies it?
So, how does one decide
which translation is the best
or closest to the original?
>i find the same (last) character of the second
>sentence used only in one other place, at the
>very end of ch.18
"chen"?
Curiously, to me at least,
Gu Zhengkun's pinyin has another character
following chen, "ye." How can it be determined
if the 'ye' ought to be there or not? Consult the
Mawangtui or Fuyi orTunhuang? How can it be
certain that any of those depict the original
intent of, perhaps, an ancient oral tradition?
>when referring to loyal
>subjects and devoted attendants of a state
>that has lost the Way.
The term, according to zhongwen.com,
carries no negative ascription nor attribute.
At least, not the way I read it. While 18 may
reflect Taoism's contrast with Confucianism,
TTC 32 might be pointing to another realm.
>so the answer, imo, must be that since in it's
>uncarved state it leaves nothing to grasp or
>form an allegiance with, no one can succeed
>in becoming it's attendant or loyal minister.
Okay.
And your opinion
is every bit as good
as somebody else's,
except fur quibbles
h'ear and th'air.
>so although one can adopt the Way, one
>cannot become it's attendant or minister
>without straying from it.
Perhaps.
But I doubt that's what it's saying.
Not being able to subjugate an ocean
does not mean one is unable to swim.
>it's working unceasingly for everyone and
>everything, but the moment anyone tries
>to put themselves in a special position
>relative to it, or perform any duty or moral
>function with respect to it, they have already
>lost it (or more likely never had it)
Possibly.
While what you say is true,
I'm not convinced that's what 32 is saying.
Gu Zhengkun translates the last part:
"The Tao is to the world
what the river and the sea
Are to the countless streamlets."
Red Pine translates:
'to picture the Tao in the world
imagine rivers and the sea'
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
actually i was only talking
about the first couple of
sentences of 32.
isn't 'ye' like saying 'indeed!',
it just adds emphasis?
maybe they are just saying,
'look, it is such a small simple
thing, yet no one dare appoint
themselves authority about it'
the part about the river and sea
is also mentioned in 61 and 66.
potts
"< o>" <hells...@lost.com> wrote in message
news:a6Wmc.48153$3Q4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
kamerm
> hellsbells wrote:
...
> >looking at the first part of ch.32,
>
> A translation
> of the Chinese written characters
> into English is: "dao chang wu ming."
> >The first part of the second sentence seems to
> >be agreed upon (it is small and uncarved),
>
> Pu is uncarved, unhewn, simplicity, plainness,
> innocence, same as in TTC 19. If you use
> zhongwen.com, it has the first phrase of TTC 32
> as: "dao chang wu ming pu." So does pu
> belong with the last part of the first sentence
> or was there a typographical error?
Hi j :-)
you've finally lured me to http://www.zhongwen.com
how about
The essence of that which we call "Tao"
in actuality cannot be properly named.
Though simplicity itself, it is beyond comprehension.
That's a sentiment i can live with, though i have no idea
whether the Chinese actually reads that way ;-)
jest playing with the (many) possible meanings
Zhongwen offers for each word
With something as nebulous as the TTC
in the hands of one not educated in classic Chinese
methinks Zhongwen more a Rorschach test
than a dictionary :-)
-k
{8-])))
o wrote:
>actually i was only talking
>about the first couple of
>sentences of 32.
>isn't 'ye' like saying 'indeed!',
>it just adds emphasis?
I have no idea.
You could easily know
much more about than eye dew.
>maybe they are just saying,
>'look, it is such a small simple
>thing, yet no one dare appoint
>themselves authority about it'
Could be.
>the part about the river and sea
>is also mentioned in 61 and 66.
Wonder why?
{8-])))
>Hi j :-)
howdy
>you've finally lured me to http://www.zhongwen.com
>
>how about
>
>The essence of that which we call "Tao"
> in actuality cannot be properly named.
>Though simplicity itself, it is beyond comprehension.
Such a saying makes a point.
How sm'all is a point, any way?
>That's a sentiment i can live with, though i have no idea
>whether the Chinese actually reads that way ;-)
>jest playing with the (many) possible meanings
>Zhongwen offers for each word
>
>With something as nebulous as the TTC
>in the hands of one not educated in classic Chinese
>methinks Zhongwen more a Rorschach test
>than a dictionary :-)
aye likesit two
>-k
a wayfarer
2 <o>
On May 7 you discussed:
"the 'Way' . . . so the answer, imo, must be that . . . the moment
anyone tries to put themselves in a special position relative to it, or
perform any duty or moral function with respect to it, they have already
lost it (or more likely never had it)"
Well, you did say "imo", but then you said "must be"- so first of all,
how likely is "likely"?
Who decides if we have it, or if we've "lost it"?
Who decides what position is "special"?
Who decides if we're "trying"?
Likely, not everyone will agree.
:)
aw
< o>
"a wayfarer" <A_Way...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19423-40...@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
(as far as i know)
Tao is not a God
It's just the Way things are.
There is nothing to decide.
kamerm
news:20040507123547...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> "Leap into the boundless and make it your home!": ft.
>
> unlurking:)
> -Zhou
>
> Ft: "....Pg 44. "Discussions on Making
> All Things Equal". "Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings" tr. Burton Watson.
The old pond:
A frog jumps in,--
The sound of the water.
Basho tr. R.H. Blyth "Haiku Volume 2 Spring"
:-)
-k
Moonshadao
>
>
> This begs the quest'ion
> of how to determine the original
> intended meaning, eh?
>
>
Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
flowery language and 'western' conception.
{8-])))
Okay.
Let's take the first few characters
of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
Does it mean:
'path that can be walked'
'way that can be told'
or does it mean something else?
Adding "fei chang dao"
does it mean that: 'chang dao'
cannot be told? Or does it mean that
any given path is, necessarily, not 'chang dao'?
Could it mean both? Neither?
What's the simplest un fettered translation
for the term "dao" without any 'western'
conception attached?
How can we be sure
that the choice chosen is the original
intended meaning?
If the verses were originally an oral tradition
passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
"dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
a doctrine or technique pertaining to
consciousness or shamanism
but over thousands of years
the saying was incorporated,
and added to more sayings, until
the context shifted to be more political
such that the received edition of 81 chapters
has something to do with Confucianism?
In other words,
the original poster
might want to define
what is meant by the word, 'original'.
< o>
"Moonshadao" <Moons...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:409F74...@aol.com...
i think having a discussion of which appears
to be closest (and why) could be worthwhile.
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
> moon wrote:
> >{8-]))) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> This begs the quest'ion
> >> of how to determine the original
> >> intended meaning, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
> >would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
> >flowery language and 'western' conception.
>
> Okay.
> Let's take the first few characters
> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
>
no sense getting hung up on the first chapter
what the original intended meaning was,
(as you just said)
what makes you think the 81
chapters is Confucianist?
LaoW...@replyto.com
>moon wrote:
>>{8-]))) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> This begs the quest'ion
>>> of how to determine the original
>>> intended meaning, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
>>would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
>>flowery language and 'western' conception.
>
SNIP
>In other words,
>the original poster
>might want to define
>what is meant by the word, 'original'.
If it is unfettered with Western conceptions, would westerners
understand it?
A criticisim of modern Chinese scholarship is that many (including
Fung Yu-lan if memory serves) are looking at the texts from a culture
that is derived from western scholarship and standards and
philosophies.
But if you pick someone who somehow miraculously has come to an
understanding parellel to warring states Chinese, would we understand
it?
a wayfarer
Hey <o>
In your May 7 post you say: "Theres nothing to decide."
It seemed to me that, in your earlier post _you_ were putting yourself
in a special position to decide who has what and who probably never had
it anyway.
That's why I asked, "Who decides?"
It's not like I was talking about any deity, or anything.
:)
aw
Moonshadao
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 06:27:29 -0700, "{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote:
>
> >moon wrote:
> >>{8-]))) wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This begs the quest'ion
> >>> of how to determine the original
> >>> intended meaning, eh?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
> >>would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
> >>flowery language and 'western' conception.
>
> If it is unfettered with Western conceptions, would westerners
> understand it?
>
I should have said Mis-conceptions dougie.
I knew as soon as I mentioned 'simple' that people
would immediately look for ways to complicate it.
< o>
i'm not interested in getting into an argument
about who understands more or less about Dao,
or who might decide that.
what i am trying to say is, based on what i have read,
anyone who tries to officiate Dao must not understand
the teachings, because the teachings appear to
say that trying to 'lord over' or 'subjugate' or
'claim allegiance to' or mold it into a shape,
simply will not work - 'it' does not appear
to 'work' that way.
in other words, to me, the text is suggesting
that the very people that would try to build
Dao into an organization that they can control,
simply do not realize what Dao is about,
otherwise why would they even bother.
Moonshadao
>
> what i am trying to say is, based on what i have read,
> anyone who tries to officiate Dao must not understand
> the teachings, because the teachings appear to
> say that trying to 'lord over' or 'subjugate' or
> 'claim allegiance to' or mold it into a shape,
> simply will not work - 'it' does not appear
> to 'work' that way.
> in other words, to me, the text is suggesting
> that the very people that would try to build
> Dao into an organization that they can control,
> simply do not realize what Dao is about,
> otherwise why would they even bother.
No one has ever said anything about molding Dao.
Dao and Daoism are two different things
and Philosophical Daoism is a third thing which can
be and is defined.
{8-])))
> j wrote:
>> Okay.
>> Let's take the first few characters
>> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
>>
>
>no sense getting hung up on the first chapter
By that same token,
no sense getting hung up
on anything, original intent, etc..
But if the very first characters
cannot be translated to reflect
an original intended meaning
then what hope is there for the
remainder of the text?
Did it "originally" begin with TTC 38?
If so, what does that suggest?
>> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
>> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
>> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
>> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
>> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
>> consciousness or shamanism
>> but over thousands of years
>> the saying was incorporated,
>> and added to more sayings, until
>> the context shifted to be more political
>> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
>> has something to do with Confucianism?
>>
>> In other words,
>> the original poster
>> might want to define
>> what is meant by the word, 'original'.
>
>what the original intended meaning was,
>(as you just said)
>
>what makes you think the 81
"In addition to its two parts, it was also
divided into separate verses. But, as with other
ancient texts, punctuation and enumeration of
passages were left up to the reader. ... Yen Tsun
produced a commentary in the first century BC that
divided the text into seventy-two verses. A
century earlier, or a couple of centuries later,
no one knows which, Ho-shang Kung divided the same
basic text into eighty-one verses. And a thousand
years later, Wu Ch'eng tried a sixty-eight-verse
division. But the system that has persisted
through the centuries is that of Ho-shang Kung,
who also gave each verse its own title.
The text itself has seen dozens of editions
containing anywhere from five to six thousand
characters. ... The greatest difference among
editions centers not on the number of characters
but on the rendering of certain phrases and the
presence or absence of certain lines."
And that's just in the Chinese,
let alone any English translation.
>chapters is Confucianist?
Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
From what I gather, Confucianism held that crap
such as "knowledge" or "kindness" or "wisdom" was
to be practiced, ritualistically if nothing else.
The institution of those things,
sociologically speaking, could be an
anti-slant of the TTC, in part.
Doing away with a bunch of shit
might be something of Confucianism
with which Taoism toys. Kindness appears
long after dao, and de, are occluded.
Those who seek knowledge, gain.
Those who seek Tao, lose.
The idea of a system (or dao)
that can be instituted once and for all
so as to result in an ordered society
might be something to which taoism speaks.
The idea of names
in terms of a name being fixed
once and for all, in order to make things better,
might be something to which taoism speaks.
Such topics may have taken center stage
during the time of the 100 schools.
dao ke dao ...
ming ke ming ...
Confucianism, and other schools,
might have sought to make the world better.
Taoism might not take such a course.
Originally, in an oral tradition,
in prehistoric times, long before any kind
of empire was around, those sayings
or topics might not have existed. Thus, if this
presumption has any weight, what was the true
or most true original intent changed over time.
Why stop any any time and assert
something is the most true?
How does one determine such a thing?
That was my question to the question.
If the sayings accreted over time,
what began as an esoteric shamanic tradition or a
guide for a healer, priest, or king of a small
tribe or state, such as Chu, could have evolved
thru the feudal period during the collapse of the
Chou and Warring States period, until we have what
is called the standard edition of Ho-shang Kung.
How the original poster
might choose to chop, dice, or slice
the text in terms of time and place
may affect the choice of any
so-called, "original intended meaning."
yunlong
> moon wrote:
> >{8-]))) wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> This begs the quest'ion
> >> of how to determine the original
> >> intended meaning, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
> >would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
> >flowery language and 'western' conception.
>
> Okay.
> Let's take the first few characters
> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
>
> Does it mean:
> 'path that can be walked'
No, [you may translate that way, however, no Chinese would/understand
it.]
> 'way that can be told'
No, [lack of focus/subject.]
> or does it mean something else?
What else's missing?
>
> Adding "fei chang dao"
> does it mean that: 'chang dao'
> cannot be told?
No,
> Or does it mean that
> any given path is, necessarily, not 'chang dao'?
No,
>
> Could it mean both? Neither?
None of above?
What do you think that "chang dao" is?
>
> What's the simplest un fettered translation
> for the term "dao" without any 'western'
> conception attached?
TaiChiKendo?
>
> How can we be sure
> that the choice chosen is the original
> intended meaning?
In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
>
> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
> consciousness or shamanism
> but over thousands of years
> the saying was incorporated,
No, "dao ke dao fei chang dao" is only to say, "what is said, [is
incomplete, thus,] is not 'chang dao.'"
What is "chang dao" again?
> and added to more sayings, until
> the context shifted to be more political
> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
> has something to do with Confucianism?
No, both Taoism and Confucianism are derived from I-Ching.
>
> In other words,
> the original poster
Chasing the "original poster" again? We saw you misread a lot of
posters' names lately,
> might want to define
> what is meant by the word, 'original'.
Hmm... Wen-Zi-Zhang is hard to break.
:)
IS
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
> o wrote:
> > j wrote:
>
> >> Okay.
> >> Let's take the first few characters
> >> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
> >>
> >
> >no sense getting hung up on the first chapter
>
> By that same token,
> no sense getting hung up
> on anything, original intent, etc..
>
> But if the very first characters
> cannot be translated to reflect
> an original intended meaning
> then what hope is there for the
> remainder of the text?
>
i would say look at the parts
that are easiest first and eventually
the others may come into focus
> Did it "originally" begin with TTC 38?
> If so, what does that suggest?
>
that there are 2 distinct sections?
> >> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
> >> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
> >> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
> >> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
> >> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
> >> consciousness or shamanism
> >> but over thousands of years
> >> the saying was incorporated,
> >> and added to more sayings, until
> >> the context shifted to be more political
> >> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
> >> has something to do with Confucianism?
> >>
wouldn't the way to find out be to
compare the verses to what we
know of Confucianism?
give or take a few verses.
there's a fair amount of repetition.
>
> >chapters is Confucianist?
>
> Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
> From what I gather, Confucianism held that crap
> such as "knowledge" or "kindness" or "wisdom" was
> to be practiced, ritualistically if nothing else.
> The institution of those things,
> sociologically speaking, could be an
> anti-slant of the TTC, in part.
>
> Doing away with a bunch of shit
> might be something of Confucianism
> with which Taoism toys. Kindness appears
> long after dao, and de, are occluded.
>
> Those who seek knowledge, gain.
> Those who seek Tao, lose.
which chapter is that from?
>
> The idea of a system (or dao)
> that can be instituted once and for all
> so as to result in an ordered society
> might be something to which taoism speaks.
>
the ttc has suggestions on how
to keep the people content,
but 'instituted once and for all'?
> The idea of names
> in terms of a name being fixed
> once and for all, in order to make things better,
> might be something to which taoism speaks.
> Such topics may have taken center stage
> during the time of the 100 schools.
>
imo, names are a convenience.
i don't recall reading about fixing names
for once and all to make things better
it sounds a bit stiff
> dao ke dao ...
> ming ke ming ...
>
> Confucianism, and other schools,
> might have sought to make the world better.
> Taoism might not take such a course.
>
i think it says one cannot improve
the world
> Originally, in an oral tradition,
> in prehistoric times, long before any kind
> of empire was around, those sayings
> or topics might not have existed. Thus, if this
> presumption has any weight, what was the true
> or most true original intent changed over time.
> Why stop any any time and assert
> something is the most true?
> How does one determine such a thing?
> That was my question to the question.
>
i see
who knows how far
back the ideas go.
i guess one makes the
best of what one has
> If the sayings accreted over time,
> what began as an esoteric shamanic tradition or a
> guide for a healer, priest, or king of a small
> tribe or state, such as Chu, could have evolved
> thru the feudal period during the collapse of the
> Chou and Warring States period, until we have what
> is called the standard edition of Ho-shang Kung.
>
> How the original poster
> might choose to chop, dice, or slice
> the text in terms of time and place
> may affect the choice of any
> so-called, "original intended meaning."
if nothing else, it may
result in some interesting
discussion
< o>
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:159b2de1.04051...@posting.google.com...
what is meant by 'derived'?
that most of the ideas originated there?
the divination aspect of it really
turns me off - that it says things
like 'do not attempt to intervene now'
or 'disengage from negative feelings
and maintain your inner light',
it makes me want to cringe.
Taoism must have arrived to
straighten those old new-agers out.
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> moon wrote:
>> >{8-]))) wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >> This begs the quest'ion
>> >> of how to determine the original
>> >> intended meaning, eh?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
>> >would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
>> >flowery language and 'western' conception.
>>
>> Okay.
>> Let's take the first few characters
>> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
>>
>> Does it mean:
>> 'path that can be walked'
>
>No, [you may translate that way, however, no Chinese would/understand
>it.]
You are sure of this.
All it takes is one to disprove.
But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
Hears m'ore opt'ions.
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/studenttao.htm
>> 'way that can be told'
>
>No, [lack of focus/subject.]
How about, "Tao that can be told"?
>> or does it mean something else?
>
>What else's missing?
"Tao that can be described"
could mean something slightly different.
In this translation the term 'tao' has not been
translated. Does a translation need to translate?
>> Adding "fei chang dao"
>> does it mean that: 'chang dao'
>> cannot be told?
>
>No,
Perhaps it means, "is not the constant Tao."
Maybe it means, "cannot be completely told"
simply due to the nature of words. It points.
>> Or does it mean that
>> any given path is, necessarily, not 'chang dao'?
>
>No,
It could mean that the Tao that can be described
is, necessarily, not "the constant Tao."
>> Could it mean both? Neither?
>
>None of above?
How does one decide?
You may use one means.
I may use another.
The original question
asked what the truest translation is.
My question, in response, was another question.
"How does one decide?"
My main focus in this thread
was the subject of how does one decide.
>What do you think that "chang dao" is?
My point of view often changes.
In this thread, at this particular time,
for purposes of this discussion, I am not trying
to decide what the partial phrase means.
What was to decide
is how to decide what to decide.
The question of what one takes to be authoritative
can play a part in what one chooses.
I'm not any kind of authority on the subject.
My tendency is to play with meanings of words.
There is no need for me to pin them or fix them.
Other people feel differently. The original poster
apparently wanted the "truest" translation.
A want, or need, existed at that time.
>> What's the simplest un fettered translation
>> for the term "dao" without any 'western'
>> conception attached?
>
>TaiChiKendo?
For you, perhaps this is the truest.
Do you suppose that "TaiChiKendo"
is the original intended meaning of the text?
>> How can we be sure
>> that the choice chosen is the original
>> intended meaning?
>
>In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
Thus, if so,
then any translation
which serves to evoke Unism
has done what the original intent was.
>> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
>> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
>> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
>> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
>> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
>> consciousness or shamanism
>> but over thousands of years
>> the saying was incorporated,
>
>No, "dao ke dao fei chang dao" is only to say, "what is said, [is
>incomplete, thus,] is not 'chang dao.'"
>
>What is "chang dao" again?
"Constant dao" to use your translation.
It appears to me, at this time, in this instance,
that your, "Tao that can be described is not the
constant Tao" suggests that any description is
necessarily incomplete. Putting it as such,
"constant" might not convey your intent.
You have now amplified your translation.
Perhaps along with your translation
you can include what you think\feel or know it
means, a sort of commentary, if you wish.
The next phrase, ming ke ming fei chang ming,
might be a reiteration of the first, as such. But
perhaps you can, in your translation, amplify
those phrases too. That might be nice.
The emphasis may shift a bit.
>> and added to more sayings, until
>> the context shifted to be more political
>> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
>> has something to do with Confucianism?
>
>No, both Taoism and Confucianism are derived from I-Ching.
That's one way to chop up the schools,
or religion, or categories. Using such a schema
a translation which most closely aligns with the
I-Ching will yield the original intent. How to do
that might remain problematic, or not, for one who
seeks original intent. At least it's one method.
When you set about translating, do you consult the
I-Ching at all? Or have you read it often enough
and absorbed it to the point where it's a part of
you and you feel no need to reference it.
You could, in your translation, footnote how the
verses pertain or are derived from the I-Ching.
This would lend great weight to your thesis.
>> In other words,
>> the original poster
>
>Chasing the "original poster" again?
Think usenet.
You know, thread, topic, etc..
What's that you said about a lack
of focus/subject?
> We saw you misread a lot of
>posters' names lately,
And so now you misread, as you often have, my
reference to the original question as, "chasing"?
>> might want to define
>> what is meant by the word, 'original'.
>
>Hmm... Wen-Zi-Zhang is hard to break.
Well, ribbit,
when the meaning is caught
the trap is quickly forgotten.
>:)
looks like turtles,
all te Way-d'own.
>IS
{8-])))
> j wrote:
>> o wrote:
>> > j wrote:
>>
>> >> Okay.
>> >> Let's take the first few characters
>> >> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
>> >>
>> >
>> >no sense getting hung up on the first chapter
>>
>> By that same token,
>> no sense getting hung up
>> on anything, original intent, etc..
>>
>> But if the very first characters
>> cannot be translated to reflect
>> an original intended meaning
>> then what hope is there for the
>> remainder of the text?
>>
>
>i would say look at the parts
>that are easiest first and eventually
>the others may come into focus
How can one be sure
that what is coming into focus
is what the original intent was of the writers?
>> Did it "originally" begin with TTC 38?
>> If so, what does that suggest?
>>
>
>that there are 2 distinct sections?
And did he, or they, intend them, originally, to
be in that order? How does one decide? Dig up more
caves and carbon date the manuscripts? Does older
necessarily mean "closest to the original intent"?
It could be
that a group of shamans, or shroomers, were
sitting around campfires trippin for long periods
of time. Originally the sayings might have been
just, like wow-man, far out shit. They said stuff
like, "dig this man, dao ke dao fei chang dao."
Or, "ya know, de appears after dao is lost."
And somebody else said, "yeah, I can dig it."
So some clown buried them. Other clowns codified
them. Some deified them. And sewit goes.
>> >> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
>> >> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
>> >> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
>> >> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
>> >> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
>> >> consciousness or shamanism
>> >> but over thousands of years
>> >> the saying was incorporated,
>> >> and added to more sayings, until
>> >> the context shifted to be more political
>> >> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
>> >> has something to do with Confucianism?
>> >>
>
>wouldn't the way to find out be to
>compare the verses to what we
>know of Confucianism?
Some translators do that.
Comparisons are made.
Others disagree. So how
can one discover the original
intent of the writers, if there was one?
Maybe toss out all the Confucian et al references
and see what's left? Perhaps that is a way.
Not sure if anybody has taken that course.
The original poster
could just abandon the quest,
read a few or a bunch of translations
and get whatever is gotten out of it.
>> >chapters is Confucianist?
>>
>> Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
>> From what I gather, Confucianism held that crap
>> such as "knowledge" or "kindness" or "wisdom" was
>> to be practiced, ritualistically if nothing else.
>> The institution of those things,
>> sociologically speaking, could be an
>> anti-slant of the TTC, in part.
>>
>> Doing away with a bunch of shit
>> might be something of Confucianism
>> with which Taoism toys. Kindness appears
>> long after dao, and de, are occluded.
>>
>> Those who seek knowledge, gain.
>> Those who seek Tao, lose.
>
>which chapter is that from?
How should I know?
Wait, I'll look it up. Iirc, it's in the 40s.
Okay, how about 48.
"wei xue ri yi
wei dao ri sun"
"The Analects" or "Da Xue"
might be The Great Learning.
Just guessing here tho.
I could be entirely full of malarky.
"Study, to show yourself approved."
>> The idea of a system (or dao)
>> that can be instituted once and for all
>> so as to result in an ordered society
>> might be something to which taoism speaks.
>>
>
>the ttc has suggestions on how
>to keep the people content,
>but 'instituted once and for all'?
The TTC may be saying exactly
that it is better not to institute rites, rituals,
learning, and stuff like that there. It contrasts
with the premises of some of the other 100 schools
of thought in ancient China. Maybe this is the
original intent. Or maybe the original intent goes
back much further.
Confucian ideals were:
"Learn ancient poetry and music."
"Ritual must regulate all your conduct."
Perhaps the writer(s) of the TTC
were at odds with sorts of formalisms existent as
far back as tribal, village, or state life goes.
Maybe it's a non-issue.
>> The idea of names
>> in terms of a name being fixed
>> once and for all, in order to make things better,
>> might be something to which taoism speaks.
>> Such topics may have taken center stage
>> during the time of the 100 schools.
>>
>
>imo, names are a convenience.
>i don't recall reading about fixing names
>for once and all to make things better
>it sounds a bit stiff
How familiar are you
with the Ming Chia or any of the so-called
"100 schools of thought"?
Some authorities propose
that the TTC was not written down until after the
Chuang-tzu. If this is the case, it may mean that
the original intent is easily to be found.
Confucians were certainly around by Zz's time.
" ... Confucius ... had his own ideas about the
individual and society, heaven and man.
In regard to society, he held that in order to
have a well-ordered one, the most important thing
is to carry out what he called the rectification
of names."
Does "ming ke ming fei chang ming" speak to that
situation? Does it mean something else entirely?
How does one decide? Which paradigm or schema
ought one adopt in order to discover the original
intent of the text?
>> dao ke dao ...
>> ming ke ming ...
>>
>> Confucianism, and other schools,
>> might have sought to make the world better.
>> Taoism might not take such a course.
>>
>
>i think it says one cannot improve
>the world
That is my usual thinking also.
So, is that saying, also found in the Zz, a kind
of retort to Confucian stuff? Or does it hearken
back further, to the I-Ching perhaps?
If the TTC is a hodge-podge mixture of saying that
were added over a long period of time, it could
well be that there was no "original intent" until
Ho-shang Kung put it all together.
Same thing with the CT.
If Kuo Hsiang was the "original compiler,"
even though there was another version, the fact
that we have his edition means that he was the
"author-as-editor" of the Chuang-tzu.
What was the original intent of the CT?
There wasn't any intent aside from each chapter
and each story within each chapter meaning what it
meant to the writer at the time. Zz wrote. He
didn't write an entire book after he died.
Same with the TTC.
Sayings were said.
Ho-shang put them together
long after the sayers turned to dirt.
What did each individual saying mean?
What did any chapter mean?
What did the "original text" mean?
First, the original poster might want to define
what is meant by terminology, e.g. terms such as
'text' or 'original'.
>> Originally, in an oral tradition,
>> in prehistoric times, long before any kind
>> of empire was around, those sayings
>> or topics might not have existed. Thus, if this
>> presumption has any weight, what was the true
>> or most true original intent changed over time.
>> Why stop any any time and assert
>> something is the most true?
>> How does one determine such a thing?
>> That was my question to the question.
>>
>
>i see
>who knows how far
>back the ideas go.
>i guess one makes the
>best of what one has
Draw lines in teh water
and hold t'hem-lines
know matter w'hat.
-chirp
>> If the sayings accreted over time,
>> what began as an esoteric shamanic tradition or a
>> guide for a healer, priest, or king of a small
>> tribe or state, such as Chu, could have evolved
>> thru the feudal period during the collapse of the
>> Chou and Warring States period, until we have what
>> is called the standard edition of Ho-shang Kung.
>>
>> How the original poster
>> might choose to chop, dice, or slice
>> the text in terms of time and place
>> may affect the choice of any
>> so-called, "original intended meaning."
>
>if nothing else, it may
>result in some interesting
>discussion
Could have been a troll
but maybe Chris is searching
for something in a bamboo grove.
a wayfarer
Some physical practices have a history of association w/ taoist
philosophy.
Can one's _intuition_ be allowed to develop to give indications of
possible results of choices one might make in deciding which translation
to use? Can we use this intuition along w/ intellectual knowledge?
Another question is: What happens if we read a "bad translation", or a
"good translation"? It's just words on a page, right?
:)
aw
{8-])))
yes. yes. yes.
from various perspectives.
When eye wrights
th'air is unusually m'ore
than One way, two-readsit.
I've read that Chinese as a language
lends itself, by nature, to lots of connotations.
The writing is pictorial and probably reflects
a world-view different from the so-called 'West's"
linear frames of reference. To presume that there
was a singular original intent might not be valid.
Poetic and art forms
often leave, as trees, sum Ting
to an imagination.
>:)
>aw
Rexx Magnus
>
> Another question is: What happens if we read a "bad translation", or a
> "good translation"? It's just words on a page, right?
>
If you're looking for something and trying to find out where to start, you
can look in the wrong place and miss the point entirely.
To email me, visit the site.
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> moon wrote:
> >> >{8-]))) wrote:
> >> >>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> This begs the quest'ion
> >> >> of how to determine the original
> >> >> intended meaning, eh?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Whichever meaning that was the simplest explaination
> >> >would be the closest. Simple and un fettered with
> >> >flowery language and 'western' conception.
> >>
> >> Okay.
> >> Let's take the first few characters
> >> of the very first utterances, "dao ke dao."
> >>
> >> Does it mean:
> >> 'path that can be walked'
> >
> >No, [you may translate that way, however, no Chinese would/understand
> >it.]
>
> You are sure of this.
Yes,
> All it takes is one to disprove.
> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
>
> Hears m'ore opt'ions.
> http://www.crispinsartwell.com/studenttao.htm
"studenttao.htm"? You haven't got a clue.
>
> >> 'way that can be told'
> >
> >No, [lack of focus/subject.]
>
> How about, "Tao that can be told"?
At least, you got a "subject."
>
> >> or does it mean something else?
> >
> >What else's missing?
>
> "Tao that can be described"
> could mean something slightly different.
> In this translation the term 'tao' has not been
> translated. Does a translation need to translate?
English meaning can only be defined by English words.
>
> >> Adding "fei chang dao"
> >> does it mean that: 'chang dao'
> >> cannot be told?
> >
> >No,
>
> Perhaps it means, "is not the constant Tao."
> Maybe it means, "cannot be completely told"
> simply due to the nature of words. It points.
Yes, as it points -> everything changes, and only thing not change is
Tao--chang/constant--thus "constant Tao."
>
> >> Or does it mean that
> >> any given path is, necessarily, not 'chang dao'?
> >
> >No,
>
> It could mean that the Tao that can be described
> is, necessarily, not "the constant Tao."
No,
>
> >> Could it mean both? Neither?
> >
> >None of above?
>
> How does one decide?
> You may use one means.
> I may use another.
In the realm of no-mind, Truth comes to you.
>
> The original question
> asked what the truest translation is.
> My question, in response, was another question.
> "How does one decide?"
If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
>
> My main focus in this thread
> was the subject of how does one decide.
Whatever.
>
> >What do you think that "chang dao" is?
>
> My point of view often changes.
> In this thread, at this particular time,
> for purposes of this discussion, I am not trying
> to decide what the partial phrase means.
>
> What was to decide
> is how to decide what to decide.
> The question of what one takes to be authoritative
> can play a part in what one chooses.
>
> I'm not any kind of authority on the subject.
> My tendency is to play with meanings of words.
> There is no need for me to pin them or fix them.
> Other people feel differently. The original poster
> apparently wanted the "truest" translation.
> A want, or need, existed at that time.
Guess you will not be the person to receive the answer then.
>
> >> What's the simplest un fettered translation
> >> for the term "dao" without any 'western'
> >> conception attached?
> >
> >TaiChiKendo?
>
> For you, perhaps this is the truest.
> Do you suppose that "TaiChiKendo"
http://taomartialarts.com/tji/tji_taichiandchuan.html
> is the original intended meaning of the text?
Michi (n.)
When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
>
> >> How can we be sure
> >> that the choice chosen is the original
> >> intended meaning?
> >
> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
>
> Thus, if so,
> then any translation
> which serves to evoke Unism
> has done what the original intent was.
Pretty much, yes.
>
> >> If the verses were originally an oral tradition
> >> passed down thru many millenia, isn't it possible
> >> that the original intended meaning of, let's say,
> >> "dao ke dao fei chang dao" might have referred to
> >> a doctrine or technique pertaining to
> >> consciousness or shamanism
> >> but over thousands of years
> >> the saying was incorporated,
> >
> >No, "dao ke dao fei chang dao" is only to say, "what is said, [is
> >incomplete, thus,] is not 'chang dao.'"
> >
> >What is "chang dao" again?
>
> "Constant dao" to use your translation.
> It appears to me, at this time, in this instance,
> that your, "Tao that can be described is not the
> constant Tao" suggests that any description is
> necessarily incomplete. Putting it as such,
> "constant" might not convey your intent.
Ya, nevertheless, it points,
> You have now amplified your translation.
Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
>
> Perhaps along with your translation
> you can include what you think\feel or know it
> means, a sort of commentary, if you wish.
Yes, a TTC translation would not be complete without account for what
"Chang Tao" is.
>
> The next phrase, ming ke ming fei chang ming,
> might be a reiteration of the first, as such.
Nah, that's too stereo-type.
> But perhaps you can, in your translation, amplify
> those phrases too. That might be nice.
> The emphasis may shift a bit.
More to that, it may knock your socks off.
>
> >> and added to more sayings, until
> >> the context shifted to be more political
> >> such that the received edition of 81 chapters
> >> has something to do with Confucianism?
> >
> >No, both Taoism and Confucianism are derived from I-Ching.
>
> That's one way to chop up the schools,
> or religion, or categories. Using such a schema
> a translation which most closely aligns with the
> I-Ching will yield the original intent. How to do
> that might remain problematic, or not, for one who
> seeks original intent. At least it's one method.
Ya, that's one method to say that you have no clues what is said in
I-Ching.
>
> When you set about translating, do you consult the
> I-Ching at all?
Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> Or have you read it often enough
> and absorbed it to the point where it's a part of
> you and you feel no need to reference it.
I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
the middle kingdom, China.
Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
than KZ.
>
> You could, in your translation, footnote how the
> verses pertain or are derived from the I-Ching.
> This would lend great weight to your thesis.
Thanks for the suggestion, but it is in the working.
>
> >> In other words,
> >> the original poster
> >
> >Chasing the "original poster" again?
>
> Think usenet.
> You know, thread, topic, etc..
> What's that you said about a lack
> of focus/subject?
Tangled up in threads?
>
> > We saw you misread a lot of
> >posters' names lately,
>
> And so now you misread, as you often have, my
> reference to the original question as, "chasing"?
You've dressed "aw" as butterfly, and "< o>" as pete, iirc, do you
really know who the "original poster" is?
"How does one decide?"
"How can one be sure?"
???
>
> >> might want to define
> >> what is meant by the word, 'original'.
> >
> >Hmm... Wen-Zi-Zhang is hard to break.
>
> Well, ribbit,
> when the meaning is caught
> the trap is quickly forgotten.
Yup, Wen-Zi-Zhang is hard to break.
>
> >:)
>
> looks like turtles,
> all te Way-d'own.
Fur sure, fur sure, :)
IS
Rexx Magnus
> Another point.
>
> The Chinese language has a pictographic element, so it has been
> asserted that unless you read chinese characters, you do not get the
> full nuance of the words. Hence, a translation is automatically
> depriving you of a certain portion of "meaning"
>
> Now, one theory is that the DDJ was originally oral. Does the comment
> about the characters still apply?
*snip*
I think it was probably written in characters originally, but perhaps
passed on in a much more detailed oral form. Many characters seem to
express ideas that take numerous (spoken) words to encapsulate properly.
I find this most confusing as I'm learning chinese and trying to find
characters to represent spoken language is difficult when using pinyin to
find the character. You can look up for 'wo' for example, which when
spoken with tone 3 (falling then rising) means "I" or "myself". The
character represented by that has several different meanings, depending on
the actual character used - the meanings can be as different as 'lying
down' and 'corpse/body'.
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
sumtymes i wunder how
du yu put up wit yer self
< o>
> > Perhaps it means, "is not the constant Tao."
> > Maybe it means, "cannot be completely told"
> > simply due to the nature of words. It points.
>
> Yes, as it points -> everything changes, and only thing not change is
> Tao--chang/constant--thus "constant Tao."
>
that is how i understand it
> >
> > >> Or does it mean that
> > >> any given path is, necessarily, not 'chang dao'?
> > >
> > >No,
> >
> > It could mean that the Tao that can be described
> > is, necessarily, not "the constant Tao."
>
> No,
>
> >
> > >> Could it mean both? Neither?
> > >
> > >None of above?
> >
> > How does one decide?
> > You may use one means.
> > I may use another.
>
> In the realm of no-mind, Truth comes to you.
>
> >
> > The original question
> > asked what the truest translation is.
> > My question, in response, was another question.
> > "How does one decide?"
>
> If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
>
!
> >
> > My main focus in this thread
> > was the subject of how does one decide.
>
> Whatever.
>
> >
> > >What do you think that "chang dao" is?
> >
> >
> > When you set about translating, do you consult the
> > I-Ching at all?
>
> Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
> I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
>
interesting
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> You are sure of this.
>
>Yes,
You have no idea what I mean
when I say, "path that can be walked"?
You are entirely unable to understand this?
How strange. Most curious.
>> All it takes is one to disprove.
>> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
>
>a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
No such thing as metaphysical
or metaphorical path in Chinese?
Be that as it may, apparently there is
such a use of "path" in English,
e.g. spiritual path. You presume
that Miller or Nadine are unable
to grok such a n'ocean?
>English meaning can only be defined by English words.
Might as well forget about
any translation being close to original then.
The best one will obtain is something English,
ipso facto.
>If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
Q.E.D.
>Michi (n.)
>When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
>means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
>pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
>great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
>considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
>this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
>--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
as is a real natural way to view history.
Others will chop, dice, and slice
in order to obtain the "original intended
meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
>> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
>>
>> Thus, if so,
>> then any translation
>> which serves to evoke Unism
>> has done what the original intent was.
>
>Pretty much, yes.
Then the spectrum has merged
from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
>Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
Not to be confused
with 'dao ke dao' and,
following such a schema,
Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
given in English, is the truest or closest
to the original intent of the text?
> those who truly know
>I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
T'hats n'ice,
two-h'ears.
>I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
>emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
>describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
>the middle kingdom, China.
Forget about the wings.
>Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
>etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
>also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
>And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
>than KZ.
At least, accordion to legend.
Some will dispute such an assertion.
Chris probably doesn't care by now.
>You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
I did?
You are sure of this?
>and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
That was a mistake.
In the same post I used 'don'.
The two are not the same.
<o> ispears.
>do you
>really know who the "original poster" is?
Chris, iirc.
>"How does one decide?"
>
>"How can one be sure?"
>
>???
That's the question;
eye dew believes you've gotsit.
Miller Jew
A_Way...@webtv.net (a wayfarer) wrote:
>
>Some physical practices have a history of association w/ taoist
>philosophy.
>
>Can one's _intuition_ be allowed to develop to give indications of
>possible results of choices one might make in deciding which translation
>to use? Can we use this intuition along w/ intellectual knowledge?
Well, let me start with the later. When pondering through (any) translation of
the TTC, in itself, reguire its intellectual field because it is in that. Now
relating ‘intuition with intellectual knowledge', intuition reguires it's
medium –this intellectual field, to make sense of what is illumined by our
intuition. I.e. what is intuited drops into recognition. So they work hand in
hand. It's like reading between the words (and then) ::awww:: you get it, yet
you don't get it without the words having been there in the first place to
yield its result.
AW
>Another question is: What happens if we read a "bad translation", or a
>"good translation"? It's just words on a page, right?
When investigating scholastically, if it is bad scholarship, is just that. But
–and getting back to our intuition can work through any translation if you
are seeking inspiration. One of the first TTC's I read – & I didn't know it
was an interpolation– turned into a great passion. .
Hope that helped,
Regards,
–Zhou
potts
"Miller Jew" <zho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040511195713...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> Ref: Subject: Re: Translation?
>
> A_Way...@webtv.net (a wayfarer) wrote:
> >
> >Some physical practices have a history of association w/ taoist
> >philosophy.
> >
> >Can one's _intuition_ be allowed to develop to give indications of
> >possible results of choices one might make in deciding which translation
> >to use? Can we use this intuition along w/ intellectual knowledge?
>
> Well, let me start with the later. When pondering through (any)
translation of
> the TTC, in itself, reguire its intellectual field because it is in that.
Now
> relating 'intuition with intellectual knowledge', intuition reguires it's
> intuition. I.e. what is intuited drops into recognition. So they work
hand in
> hand. It's like reading between the words (and then) ::awww:: you get it,
yet
> you don't get it without the words having been there in the first place to
> yield its result.
>
> AW
> >Another question is: What happens if we read a "bad translation", or a
> >"good translation"? It's just words on a page, right?
>
> When investigating scholastically, if it is bad scholarship, is just that.
But
> are seeking inspiration. One of the first TTC's I read - & I didn't know
it
> was an interpolation- turned into a great passion. .
>
> Hope that helped,
> Regards,
> -Zhou
>
>
If we accept that the Tao that can be described is not The Tao. Then the
jump from any description whether in english or chinese is gonna be pretty
big (G) Rgds Ken
Rexx Magnus
>> > When you set about translating, do you consult the
>> > I-Ching at all?
>>
>> Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
>> I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
>>
>
> interesting
This is the same approach that I take with Runes.
People say "Are you going to tell me my future?"
"No, I'm going to help you to highlight issues in your life, and find the
best way to resolve them."
Moonshadao
Some of them are bullshit on a page.
LeGuin, Mitchell,Legge...
Moonshadao
>
*
>
> I think it was probably written in characters originally, but perhaps
> passed on in a much more detailed oral form.
Oral traditions usually predate writting.
I am certain that the concepts of Taoist Philosophy
pre-date writting. Lao Tzu (old master) was a myth.
{8-])))
What do you think
the original intents and concepts were?
Moonshadao
Yin and Yang
Oneness of all things
Living simple and natural.
Doing without doing
{8-])))
thanks
Rexx Magnus
Yes, what I should have said was that it probably started off as quite a
complex oral tradition, which became 'compressed' by writing as chinese
characters. Using many more terms/sayings/words in oral form than in
script. Trying to reconstruct the original from the compressed form is
the problem.
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
>
> >> You are sure of this.
> >
> >Yes,
>
> You have no idea what I mean
> when I say, "path that can be walked"?
> You are entirely unable to understand this?
You do? "what," "where," "when," "why," "how," the "path" you were
talking about?
> How strange. Most curious.
To say I know you have no/little idea about what is "Xing-Er-Xia," and
its relationship with "Xing-Er-Shang."
>
> >> All it takes is one to disprove.
> >> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
> >
> >a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
>
> No such thing as metaphysical
> or metaphorical path in Chinese?
Not sure, given the example you gave below.
What is the subject of "your" metaphysical and "what" is "your"
"metaphorical path"?
>
> Be that as it may, apparently there is
> such a use of "path" in English,
> e.g. spiritual path.
You mean "path"="spiritual path"? Or you forgot how English works
already?
> You presume
> that Miller or Nadine are unable
> to grok such a n'ocean?
You mean when you say "path" they'd know you mean "spiritual path"?
No, don't think they can grok such a n'ocean.
>
> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
>
> Might as well forget about
> any translation being close to original then.
Why? Find a translation that covers (remains valid in) the largest
domain that will be close enough.
However, you may have to "walk" the rest of the Way/"path" to "know"
what is said.
> The best one will obtain is something English,
> ipso facto.
"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
>
> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
>
> Q.E.D.
Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
>
> >Michi (n.)
> >When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
> >means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
> >pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
> >great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
> >considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
> >this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
> >--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
>
> Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
> as is a real natural way to view history.
Some cannot distinguish things but think they know things apart.
> Others will chop, dice, and slice
> in order to obtain the "original intended
> meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
Yes, if your "truest" has meaning.
>
> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
> >>
> >> Thus, if so,
> >> then any translation
> >> which serves to evoke Unism
> >> has done what the original intent was.
> >
> >Pretty much, yes.
>
> Then the spectrum has merged
> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
>
> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
>
> Not to be confused
> with 'dao ke dao' and,
> following such a schema,
> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
Very shrewd, what does that get you? What is the "Ming itself"?
>
> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
> given in English, is the truest or closest
> to the original intent of the text?
Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
someone to write/translate that way first.
>
> > those who truly know
> >I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
>
> T'hats n'ice,
> two-h'ears.
>
> >I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
> >emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
> >describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
> >the middle kingdom, China.
>
> Forget about the wings.
Wings follow the body naturally.
>
> >Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
> >etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
> >also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
>
> Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
>
> >And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
> >than KZ.
>
> At least, accordion to legend.
> Some will dispute such an assertion.
Some will make everything as an assertion and dispute it to show as
though they know something.
> Chris probably doesn't care by now.
Wonder where is J now.
>
> >You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
>
> I did?
> You are sure of this?
I was mistaken "aw" for "small tortoiseshell," nevertheless, your
"misaddress" stands,
>
> >and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
>
> That was a mistake.
> In the same post I used 'don'.
> The two are not the same.
> <o> ispears.
whatever.
>
> >do you
> >really know who the "original poster" is?
>
> Chris, iirc.
No longer push "original" back to shaman spells and the beginning of
the world?
>
> >"How does one decide?"
> >
> >"How can one be sure?"
> >
> >???
>
> That's the question;
And the answer was given,
> eye dew believes you've gotsit.
surprised that you didn't get it;
"How strange. Most curious."
:)
IS
< o>
"Moonshadao" <Moons...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40A217...@aol.com...
even though Legge was a missionary
and he tried to preserve some of the
rhyming, i find his translation better
than many others, including Feng/English.
And F/E was probably the first translation
i ever encountered (i still have the sep72
print that i purchased when i was a teenager)
Why do i find Feng/English lacking?
Looking at chapter 7 (for example),
i find only Mitchell agreeing with F/E
that heaven/earth endure forever simply
because they are unborn. Yet in chapter
1, heaven and earth do have a beginning.
Heaven and Earth are another way of
saying everything (10k things), and the
reason anything is preserved is a result
of it's not living for itself, or not acting for
it's own private ends, which is a theme
common throughout the texts (selflessness)
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
lol
yunlong
.....
> > >
> > > When you set about translating, do you consult the
> > > I-Ching at all?
> >
> > Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
> > I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> >
>
> interesting
"'Xing-Er-Shang'-Xue," or simply "Xing-Er-Shang" is a Chinese term for
a/any body of knowledge that studies/examines the
Way/"principal/guiding principle[s]" of a/any subject/"thing" may/may
not come to being, or become true, given the/an observed phenomenon.
As a Xing-Er-Shang, I-Ching studies/examines/describes the observed
phenomenon known as Zhong-Guo, China. And Ba-Gua were actually derived
from the description of geography locations of Zhong-Guo and how their
unique properties affected the formation the realm of Zhong Guo, the
realm of Tian, Di, Ren.
In its study domain, I-Ching covers three subject areas: 1.) Li,
reason, as a XES it also means Tao; 2.) Xiang, phenomenon; and 3.)
Shu, data. Data is the hard good. So the process of "becoming" goes
like this: Tao gives rise Xiang, yet its form remains undetermined;
based on Xiang, we human generate data. When the data becomes hard, so
is the Xiang, then there's the "being."
So, the data is an afterfact of Xiang, and Xiang is an afterfact of
Li/Tao. So, changing the data won't affect the Xiang/outcome, what's
the use for foretelling?
:)
IS
yunlong
.....
> > >
> > > I-Ching at all?
> >
> > Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
> > I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> >
>
> interesting
"'Xing-Er-Shang'-Xue," or simply "Xing-Er-Shang" is a Chinese term for
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>>is wrote:
>>>jb wrote:
>> You have no idea what I mean
>> when I say, "path that can be walked"?
>> You are entirely unable to understand this?
>
>You do?
You don't?
>"what," "where," "when," "why," "how," the "path" you were
>talking about?
Apparently you don't fully understand.
Or perhaps you are simply trolling.
Never-the-less, by your inclusion
of '"what," "where," "when," "why," "how,"'
you obviously do have some idea.
>> How strange. Most curious.
>
>To say I know you have no/little idea about what is "Xing-Er-Xia," and
>its relationship with "Xing-Er-Shang."
To say you know I have no/little idea
between physical and metaphysical
is typical of your trolling. Which is it,
"no" or "little"?
>> >> All it takes is one to disprove.
>> >> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
>> >
>> >a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
>>
>> No such thing as metaphysical
>> or metaphorical path in Chinese?
>
>Not sure,
So now you are not so sure.
>given the example you gave below.
Now you are unsure.
>What is the subject of "your"
Here you shift, once again,
the emphasis from the original subject
and topic and focus of Chris
and what the presumed writer or writers of the
text meant to what it is that "I" mean.
>metaphysical and "what" is "your"
>"metaphorical path"?
People chop, dice, slice, and parse
individually, according to such a paradigm
that you imply by your question.
The implication is that the original intent of the
text, the truest translation, will necessarily be
metaphorical or metaphysical.
This might be slightely different
from what rick has suggested.
>> Be that as it may, apparently there is
>> such a use of "path" in English,
>> e.g. spiritual path.
>
>You mean "path"="spiritual path"?
That, or any metaphysical way.
The concept revolves around metaphor
and what is beyond physics to measure.
> Or you forgot how English works already?
In English there are denotations and connotations.
If there was one and only one right way to
translated the text, to be closest or truest to
the original intent, then there would not now be
such a great number of translations. You might, at
some time in the future, modify your own version.
Such is how not only English idiomatic expressions
serve their purpose, but also how archaeology
tends to add to how a text is interpreted.
>> You presume
>> that Miller or Nadine are unable
>> to grok such a n'ocean?
>
>You mean when you say "path" they'd know you mean "spiritual path"?
No. I mean that they can understand
what the statement, all by itself, can mean.
The word, words, phrase, phrases, line and lines
can have denotation and connotation.
How would you translate the term, "dao"?
>No, don't think they can grok such a n'ocean.
That reveals the limit of your presumption.
Otoh, if either of them happen to say that they
can understand what the sentence meant
then it disproves your original assertion.
>> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
>>
>> Might as well forget about
>> any translation being close to original then.
>
>Why?
Because it's a closed set.
>Find a translation that covers (remains valid in) the largest
>domain that will be close enough.
This is the tack Newagers take
much to the dismay of some.
>However, you may have to "walk" the rest of the Way/"path" to "know"
>what is said.
So you do know what the sentence meant.
Why go thru pretending that you don't.?
>> The best one will obtain is something English,
>> ipso facto.
>
>"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
>> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>
>Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
Tao, in the second instance,
means decide or describe?
If the term can connote several ideas
this opens the door to a number of translations.
>> >Michi (n.)
>> >When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
>> >means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
>> >pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
>> >great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
>> >considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
>> >this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
>> >--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
>>
>> Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
>> as is a real natural way to view history.
>
>Some cannot distinguish things but think they know things apart.
Newagers of'ten-k dew asuch.
>> Others will chop, dice, and slice
>> in order to obtain the "original intended
>> meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
>
>Yes, if your "truest" has meaning.
That's why I refer back to Chris
and suggest he might want to define,
for himself, what he means by his terminology.
>> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, if so,
>> >> then any translation
>> >> which serves to evoke Unism
>> >> has done what the original intent was.
>> >
>> >Pretty much, yes.
>>
>> Then the spectrum has merged
>> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
>
>So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
>man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
Actually, the old man said he didn't.
Bugcatcher said he did after he could balance
several balls on top of each other.
Wheelwright spoke of dead-men's ashes.
Why the CT incorporates all of these,
plus the rest can put the matter to rest.
It looks at the situation from a variety
and implies the obvious, too sum.
Perspectival relativism
was not on rick's list of original intent.
>> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
>>
>> Not to be confused
>> with 'dao ke dao' and,
>> following such a schema,
>> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
>
>Very shrewd, what does that get you?
Possibly closer to the original intent.
>What is the "Ming itself"?
What does the I-Ching say?
>> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
>> given in English, is the truest or closest
>> to the original intent of the text?
>
>Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
>of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
>someone to write/translate that way first.
Which brings it back to Chris
and why I suggested he define
what he meant by his terminology.
>> > those who truly know
>> >I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
>>
>> T'hats n'ice,
>> two-h'ears.
>>
>> >I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
>> >emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
>> >describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
>> >the middle kingdom, China.
>>
>> Forget about the wings.
>
>Wings follow the body naturally.
Eagle has large wings.
Sparrow has small wings.
Both serve their purpose equally.
To put large wings on a sparrow
might or might not be in keeping
with the original intent of the text.
To clip the wings of an eagle
might keep it from flying away
but might not be the Way of Taoism.
>> >Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
>> >etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
>> >also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
>>
>> Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
>>
>> >And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
>> >than KZ.
>>
>> At least, accordion to legend.
>> Some will dispute such an assertion.
>
>Some will make everything as an assertion and dispute it to show as
>though they know something.
Such as, "no Chinese would understand 'xyz'"?
>> Chris probably doesn't care by now.
>
>Wonder where is J now.
Lemming checks headers.
>> >You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
>>
>> I did?
>> You are sure of this?
>
>I was mistaken "aw" for "small tortoiseshell," nevertheless, your
>"misaddress" stands,
What did I misaddress?
>> >and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
>>
>> That was a mistake.
>> In the same post I used 'don'.
>> The two are not the same.
>> <o> ispears.
>
>whatever.
It's your quibble.
>> >do you
>> >really know who the "original poster" is?
>>
>> Chris, iirc.
>
>No longer push "original" back to shaman spells and the beginning of
>the world?
That's an option.
It would be up to Chris to decide.
>> >"How does one decide?"
>> >
>> >"How can one be sure?"
>> >
>> >???
>>
>> That's the question;
>
>And the answer was given,
And here we are.
>> eye dew believes you've gotsit.
>
>surprised that you didn't get it;
Didn't get "what"?
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >>is wrote:
> >>>jb wrote:
>
> >> You have no idea what I mean
> >> when I say, "path that can be walked"?
> >> You are entirely unable to understand this?
> >
> >You do?
>
> You don't?
Not for a translation of "Tao Ke Tao," no, I don't.
>
> >"what," "where," "when," "why," "how," the "path" you were
> >talking about?
>
> Apparently you don't fully understand.
> Or perhaps you are simply trolling.
> Never-the-less, by your inclusion
> of '"what," "where," "when," "why," "how,"'
> you obviously do have some idea.
The "some idea" you've shown that I have was to say that your idea
don't go beyond those labels.
>
> >> How strange. Most curious.
> >
> >To say I know you have no/little idea about what is "Xing-Er-Xia," and
> >its relationship with "Xing-Er-Shang."
>
> To say you know I have no/little idea
> between physical and metaphysical
While "what" "idea" you have about/between physical and metaphysical
remains to be seen, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what makes
Xing-Er-Xia, or simply "physical."
> is typical of your trolling.
The cheap shining thing is "Xing-Er-Xia,"
> Which is it, "no" or "little"?
You actually distinguish them?
>
> >> >> All it takes is one to disprove.
> >> >> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
> >> >
> >> >a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
> >>
> >> No such thing as metaphysical
> >> or metaphorical path in Chinese?
> >
> >Not sure,
>
> So now you are not so sure.
Yup, not sure about your metaphysical or metaphorical part, to say I'm
not quite willing to call a square peg in a round hole a "fit,"
>
> >given the example you gave below.
>
> Now you are unsure.
given the example you gave below,
>
> >What is the subject of "your"
>
> Here you shift, once again,
> the emphasis from the original subject
> and topic and focus of Chris
> and what the presumed writer or writers of the
> text meant to what it is that "I" mean.
and how you chop, dice, slice and parse
individually, according to your mutated ego denial,
>
> >metaphysical and "what" is "your"
> >"metaphorical path"?
>
> People chop, dice, slice, and parse
> individually, according to such a paradigm
> that you imply by your question.
Fancy to see how you partition yourself out the predicament, so you
think.
>
> The implication is that the original intent of the
> text, the truest translation, will necessarily be
> metaphorical or metaphysical.
The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
TTC describes?
>
> This might be slightely different
> from what rick has suggested.
Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
it's the wordswords--bullshit.
>
> >> Be that as it may, apparently there is
> >> such a use of "path" in English,
> >> e.g. spiritual path.
> >
> >You mean "path"="spiritual path"?
>
> That, or any metaphysical way.
> The concept revolves around metaphor
> and what is beyond physics to measure.
No, any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is
just hot air.
A beaten "path" may not have anything "spiritual" about it.
>
> > Or you forgot how English works already?
>
> In English there are denotations and connotations.
And you don't know that the "spiritual" part of "spiritual path" is
from the "spiritual" and actually has nothing to do with "path"?
> If there was one and only one right way to
> translated the text, to be closest or truest to
> the original intent, then there would not now be
> such a great number of translations.
Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
be valid in all encounters.
> You might, at
> some time in the future, modify your own version.
Changing in appearance may not invalidate the principle within.
>
> Such is how not only English idiomatic expressions
> serve their purpose, but also how archaeology
> tends to add to how a text is interpreted.
I did say that you couldn't study Taoism in English alone.
>
> >> You presume
> >> that Miller or Nadine are unable
> >> to grok such a n'ocean?
> >
> >You mean when you say "path" they'd know you mean "spiritual path"?
>
> No. I mean that they can understand
> what the statement, all by itself, can mean.
Yup, we see that,
> The word, words, phrase, phrases, line and lines
> can have denotation and connotation.
However, question remains, how does the Xing-Er-Xia "path" "denote and
connote" to the Xing-Er-Shang Tao?
>
> How would you translate the term, "dao"?
Upside down?
>
> >No, don't think they can grok such a n'ocean.
>
> That reveals the limit of your presumption.
> Otoh, if either of them happen to say that they
> can understand what the sentence meant
We all know what that sentence meant, but you seem keeping forgetting
you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
> then it disproves your original assertion.
No, then they may be just as dumb as you or as dishonest as you,
there's no proof.
>
> >> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
> >>
> >> Might as well forget about
> >> any translation being close to original then.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because it's a closed set.
Not really, you do have a body that reflects the same senses as other
non-English speakers' bodies do, don't you?
>
> >Find a translation that covers (remains valid in) the largest
> >domain that will be close enough.
>
> This is the tack Newagers take
> much to the dismay of some.
Yup, this is the tack Newagers take
to pretend they are not newagers.
Actually, newager is not the problem, as the world evolves, but the
worn-out dogma is.
>
> >However, you may have to "walk" the rest of the Way/"path" to "know"
> >what is said.
>
> So you do know what the sentence meant.
> Why go thru pretending that you don't.?
To say you don't know the difference between Xing-Er-Xia and
Xing-Er-Shang.
>
> >> The best one will obtain is something English,
> >> ipso facto.
> >
> >"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
>
> Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
Yup, no wonder you seem to be so confused.
>
> >> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
> >>
> >> Q.E.D.
> >
> >Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
>
> Tao, in the second instance,
> means decide or describe?
Don't you have to "decide" before you "describe"? Then again, maybe
you don't.
>
> If the term can connote several ideas
> this opens the door to a number of translations.
Why? So you can get confused forever more?
>
> >> >Michi (n.)
> >> >When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
> >> >means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
> >> >pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
> >> >great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
> >> >considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
> >> >this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
> >> >--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
> >>
> >> Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
> >> as is a real natural way to view history.
> >
> >Some cannot distinguish things but think they know things apart.
>
> Newagers of'ten-k dew asuch.
Yup, especially a newager with wordswords.
>
> >> Others will chop, dice, and slice
> >> in order to obtain the "original intended
> >> meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
> >
> >Yes, if your "truest" has meaning.
>
> That's why I refer back to Chris
> and suggest he might want to define,
> for himself, what he means by his terminology.
Interesting to see how you show interest in how other people think
without knowing how yourself think.
>
> >> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus, if so,
> >> >> then any translation
> >> >> which serves to evoke Unism
> >> >> has done what the original intent was.
> >> >
> >> >Pretty much, yes.
> >>
> >> Then the spectrum has merged
> >> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
> >
> >So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
> >man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
>
> Actually, the old man said he didn't.
To say you don't know how to read CT,
>
> Bugcatcher said he did after he could balance
> several balls on top of each other.
>
> Wheelwright spoke of dead-men's ashes.
>
> Why the CT incorporates all of these,
> plus the rest can put the matter to rest.
> It looks at the situation from a variety
> and implies the obvious, too sum.
Yes, quite obviously,
>
> Perspectival relativism
> was not on rick's list of original intent.
You missed the Unism.
>
> >> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
> >>
> >> Not to be confused
> >> with 'dao ke dao' and,
> >> following such a schema,
> >> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
> >
> >Very shrewd, what does that get you?
>
> Possibly closer to the original intent.
Yup, very shrewd, what do you mean by "closer," and how do you
measure?
>
> >What is the "Ming itself"?
>
> What does the I-Ching say?
I-Ching did not use the term.
>
> >> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
> >> given in English, is the truest or closest
> >> to the original intent of the text?
> >
> >Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
> >of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
> >someone to write/translate that way first.
>
> Which brings it back to Chris
Chris? I think he has moved on,
> and why I suggested he define
> what he meant by his terminology.
only you hide behind his name shadow,
>
> >> > those who truly know
> >> >I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> >>
> >> T'hats n'ice,
> >> two-h'ears.
> >>
> >> >I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
> >> >emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
> >> >describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
> >> >the middle kingdom, China.
> >>
> >> Forget about the wings.
> >
> >Wings follow the body naturally.
>
> Eagle has large wings.
> Sparrow has small wings.
> Both serve their purpose equally.
>
> To put large wings on a sparrow
> might or might not be in keeping
> with the original intent of the text.
>
> To clip the wings of an eagle
> might keep it from flying away
> but might not be the Way of Taoism.
talking about something imaginary as though they real?
>
> >> >Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
> >> >etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
> >> >also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
> >>
> >> Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
> >>
> >> >And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
> >> >than KZ.
> >>
> >> At least, accordion to legend.
> >> Some will dispute such an assertion.
> >
> >Some will make everything as an assertion and dispute it to show as
> >though they know something.
>
> Such as, "no Chinese would understand 'xyz'"?
That was to say you might not learn Chinese but also lost your
English, pretty much like the boy from Wei in CT's story.
>
> >> Chris probably doesn't care by now.
> >
> >Wonder where is J now.
>
> Lemming checks headers.
Lost in the cyberspace?
>
> >> >You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
> >>
> >> I did?
> >> You are sure of this?
> >
> >I was mistaken "aw" for "small tortoiseshell," nevertheless, your
> >"misaddress" stands,
>
> What did I misaddress?
"butterfly wrote:
>jay wrote:
>> butterfly wrote:
>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
Your pretension is pathetic.
>
> >> >and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
> >>
> >> That was a mistake.
> >> In the same post I used 'don'.
> >> The two are not the same.
> >> <o> ispears.
> >
> >whatever.
>
> It's your quibble.
Your verbiage.
>
> >> >do you
> >> >really know who the "original poster" is?
> >>
> >> Chris, iirc.
> >
> >No longer push "original" back to shaman spells and the beginning of
> >the world?
>
> That's an option.
> It would be up to Chris to decide.
Get stuck with Chris, eh?
>
> >> >"How does one decide?"
> >> >
> >> >"How can one be sure?"
> >> >
> >> >???
> >>
> >> That's the question;
> >
> >And the answer was given,
>
> And here we are.
In your perpetuated motion of wiggle.
>
> >> eye dew believes you've gotsit.
> >
> >surprised that you didn't get it;
>
> Didn't get "what"?
The meaning of words.
a wayfarer
yunlong-
In your May 11 post you opined:
"Consult? You mean seeking foretelling type? No, those who truly know
I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling."
In a complementarily opposite way, I opine:
Those who "truly know the I-Ching" can "use" the I-Ching however they
want to, including "to seek foretelling."
:)
aw
a wayfarer
Rexx Magnus-
May 11 you responded:
"If you're looking for something and trying to find out where to start,
you can look in the wrong place and miss the point entirely."
First- in a taoist philosophical kind of way, what is "the point", and
what happens when we "miss" it, compared to when we do something else?
&
What if we're _not_ "looking for something and trying to find out where
to start"? Can we look in the "wrong" place anyway? Can we look in the
"right" place?
:)
aw
Rexx Magnus
No, but you'll find something entirely different from anyone else. ;)
Moonshadao
On 11 May 2004 14:50:27 GMT, Rexx Magnus <tras...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Another question is: What happens if we read a "bad translation", or a
> > "good translation"? It's just words on a page, right?
>
>
> "If you're looking for something and trying to find out where to start,
> you can look in the wrong place and miss the point entirely."
>
>>
> First- in a taoist philosophical kind of way, what is "the point"
What is the point of the Tao Te Ching?
What is the point of understanding it?
What is the point of having a translation that isn't
influenced by someone's ideas of what the passage should say
instead of what it actually says?
What is the point of having a translation that is free of
christian ideology and new-age bullshit?
, and
> what happens when we "miss" it,
You don't get it?
You fail to understand what was actually being said.
> compared to when we do something else?
What do you want to do that for?
You don't want to know what was actually being said?
> What if we're _not_ "looking for something and trying to find out where
> to start"?
You are trying to find where to start not looking for something?
Leave your head up your ass and you will all set.
Can we look in the "wrong" place anyway? Can we look in the
> "right" place?
>
Can you be more assholy?
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
[ ... ichin wrote: ...]
>The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
>metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
>TTC describes?
By your standards, metaphorical.
Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
authority would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
>> This might be slightely different
>> from what rick has suggested.
>
>Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
>it's the wordswords--bullshit.
So, back to Chris' question;
based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
which translation do you think, feel, or know
is closest to the original text's meaning?
> ... you seem keeping forgetting
>you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
I'm not forgetting anything
but you are fond of projecting.
The connection was with respect
to the subject and topic, remember?
>Chris? I think he has moved on,
Maybe you will answer his question.
Perhaps you will offer, tho incomplete,
http://www.taomartialarts.com/ttc/ttc_main.html
as _the_ translation closest to the original, eh?
>> What did I misaddress?
>
>"butterfly wrote:
>>jay wrote:
>>> butterfly wrote:
>>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
>
>Your pretension is pathetic.
Your ignorance is astounding.
I did not misaddress anything.
Figure it out.
http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
< o>
> So, back to Chris' question;
> based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> which translation do you think, feel, or know
> is closest to the original text's meaning?
>
sorry to interrupt, but since you seem so
against this, why do you keep on asking?
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> [ ... ichin wrote: ...]
>
> >The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> >metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> >TTC describes?
>
> By your standards, metaphorical.
Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
> Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> authority would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
his spokesman would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
>
> >> This might be slightely different
> >> from what rick has suggested.
> >
> >Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> >it's the wordswords--bullshit.
>
> So, back to Chris' question;
Only three posts, you're already experiencing persona split? The
following question is definitely not Chris's,
> based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> which translation do you think, feel, or know
> is closest to the original text's meaning?
For how to find a "largest domain" you need a quite bit of math
training, and I-Ching? Forget it.
To say your knowledge has too many holes and gaps to even begin to
comprehend the answer.
Yup, answer was given.
>
> > ... you seem keeping forgetting
> >you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
>
> I'm not forgetting anything
> but you are fond of projecting.
> The connection was with respect
> to the subject and topic, remember?
Yup, your "path"="spiritual path" is really shrewd.
>
> >Chris? I think he has moved on,
>
> Maybe you will answer his question.
> Perhaps you will offer, tho incomplete,
> http://www.taomartialarts.com/ttc/ttc_main.html
> as _the_ translation closest to the original, eh?
Not really, the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to
the original is silly.
To say you guys danced around a fire quite nicely.
>
> >> What did I misaddress?
> >
> >"butterfly wrote:
> >>jay wrote:
> >>> butterfly wrote:
> >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> >
> >Your pretension is pathetic.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding.
> I did not misaddress anything.
> Figure it out.
> http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
a butterfly?
:)
IS
{8-])))
> j wrote:
Apparently what I seem to be
seems to be other than what I am.
The assumptions, presumptions, and projections
people carry a round and round is telling.
I'm not against it.
I think it's a great quest'ion to pursue.
That's why I keep on asking.
Ichin often avoids an op quest
and tends to focus in on other stuff.
It's not really a difficult question, imo.
Lots of possible answers tho.
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> So, back to Chris' question;
>> which translation do you think, feel, or know
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
It is difficult, imo.
Some parts of some translations are
going to be more accurate than others
in reflecting what was originally intended.
Can we not at least agree on that?
I'm not saying to throw out or condemn
anyone's translation, but can't we have a
discussion as to why some verses of some
translations seem to be a better fit than others,
without you going off in all directions at once?
hehe
{8-])))
> j wrote:
>> It's not really a difficult question, imo.
>> Lots of possible answers tho.
>
>It is difficult, imo.
Okay.
>Some parts of some translations are
>going to be more accurate than others
>in reflecting what was originally intended.
In that case
some parts of some translations
will be closer than some parts of others.
>Can we not at least agree on that?
Maybe.
Which translation, overall,
might we agree is the closest?
As for me,
I'm not in any kind of position
to even begin to decide. The situation
is entirely problematic. To t'hat, eye alluded.
>I'm not saying to throw out or condemn
>anyone's translation, but can't we have a
>discussion as to why some verses of some
>translations seem to be a better fit than others,
>without you going off in all directions at once?
I've tried to simplify it a bit
by not responding to Ichin's questions
to see if he will provide a single answer.
It remains to be seen if he will or won't.
>hehe
I'm more than happy
to discuss each verse, or word,
in terms of why a translation is a better fit
than some other translation.
We can begin, again,
if you wish, with "Tao."
Ought it be translated as "Way"
or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
"dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
and in the second instance meaning
some other thing? Why?
< o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
> o wrote:
> > j wrote:
>
> >> It's not really a difficult question, imo.
> >> Lots of possible answers tho.
> >
> >It is difficult, imo.
>
> Okay.
>
> >Some parts of some translations are
> >going to be more accurate than others
> >in reflecting what was originally intended.
>
> In that case
> some parts of some translations
> will be closer than some parts of others.
>
you do agree?
> >Can we not at least agree on that?
>
> Maybe.
not quite?
> Which translation, overall,
> might we agree is the closest?
>
back to all or nothing?
> As for me,
> I'm not in any kind of position
> to even begin to decide. The situation
> is entirely problematic. To t'hat, eye alluded.
>
back to you?
> >I'm not saying to throw out or condemn
> >anyone's translation, but can't we have a
> >discussion as to why some verses of some
> >translations seem to be a better fit than others,
> >without you going off in all directions at once?
>
> I've tried to simplify it a bit
> by not responding to Ichin's questions
> to see if he will provide a single answer.
> It remains to be seen if he will or won't.
>
over to Ichin?
> >hehe
>
> I'm more than happy
> to discuss each verse, or word,
> in terms of why a translation is a better fit
> than some other translation.
>
really this time?
> We can begin, again,
> if you wish, with "Tao."
> Ought it be translated as "Way"
> or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
> or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
> or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
> or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
> "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
> and in the second instance meaning
> some other thing? Why?
not this again.
{8-])))
> j wrote:
>> o wrote:
>> > j wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not really a difficult question, imo.
>> >> Lots of possible answers tho.
>> >
>> >It is difficult, imo.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> >Some parts of some translations are
>> >going to be more accurate than others
>> >in reflecting what was originally intended.
>>
>> In that case
>> some parts of some translations
>> will be closer than some parts of others.
>>
>
>you do agree?
For me it's problematic.
I have no idea what was originally intended.
Not being able to speak or read Chinese,
there is no way for me to plumb depths
of what that language has to offer.
Authorities are numerous.
Mystics abound. Linguists are plentiful.
>> >Can we not at least agree on that?
>>
>> Maybe.
>
>not quite?
We can agree, hypothetically.
If, and this antecedent "if" is a qualifier,
we agree that some parts are closer than others,
then we agree that some parts are closer than
others. For the sake of discussion I can agree.
For the sake of discussion I can disagree.
>> Which translation, overall,
>> might we agree is the closest?
>>
>
>back to all or nothing?
There are lots of ways to chop.
Chris asked about the truest.
He didn't ask about which verses.
Probably he was looking for a version
that he could read and assume stuff.
You suggested "oldest" as a criterion.
Archaeology might help. There still remains the
difficulty of translation.
Ichin said, "largest domain" and mentioned how the
I-Ching is somehow a factor. Since his version
only contains a few chapters it might indicate
just how difficult a task it can be.
>> As for me,
>> I'm not in any kind of position
>> to even begin to decide. The situation
>> is entirely problematic. To t'hat, eye alluded.
>>
>
>back to you?
You can have an opinion.
Ichin can have an opinion.
I never felt an inclination toward "true" or
"false" in terms of the text. Nor have I thought
that one translation is closer than another.
For me it was simply never an issue.
Fun stuff to talk about tho.
>> >I'm not saying to throw out or condemn
>> >anyone's translation, but can't we have a
>> >discussion as to why some verses of some
>> >translations seem to be a better fit than others,
>> >without you going off in all directions at once?
>>
>> I've tried to simplify it a bit
>> by not responding to Ichin's questions
>> to see if he will provide a single answer.
>> It remains to be seen if he will or won't.
>>
>
>over to Ichin?
If he wants to provide Chris with an answer then
he can do that. If he doesn't feel qualified to
make that call then he can refrain from answering
the question as it was first posed. Maybe he never
read any translation and so he can't answer.
>> >hehe
>>
>> I'm more than happy
>> to discuss each verse, or word,
>> in terms of why a translation is a better fit
>> than some other translation.
>>
>
>really this time?
Sure. The thread has yet to end.
There is only a continuous now.
Have you chopped it into this and that?
>> We can begin, again,
>> if you wish, with "Tao."
>> Ought it be translated as "Way"
>> or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
>> or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
>> or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
>> or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
>> "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
>> and in the second instance meaning
>> some other thing? Why?
>
>not this again.
Then why bring it up, again?
Which verses do you think are closer to the
original? Which are truest?
< o>
> Then why bring it up, again?
> Which verses do you think are closer to the
> original? Which are truest?
i've already made a stab at
comparing verses from different
translations twice in this thread.
yunlong
"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
original is silly."
Hint:
"get the meaning of the words, and forget about words."--CT--
"in studying Tao, reduce the garbage/verbiage day by day, until
there's none."--TTC--
> >
>
> over to Ichin?
>
> > >hehe
> >
> > I'm more than happy
> > to discuss each verse, or word,
> > in terms of why a translation is a better fit
> > than some other translation.
> >
>
> really this time?
>
> > We can begin, again,
> > if you wish, with "Tao."
> > Ought it be translated as "Way"
> > or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
> > or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
> > or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
> > or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
> > "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
> > and in the second instance meaning
> > some other thing?
You missed "upside down."
> Why?
When I was in my teens, a few of my buddies would get together and
bullshit quite often. One of the guys would lose his argument, and to
save his face, he would continue arguing insensibly, and eventually he
would turn into a shameless denial. Then, we would grab his ankles and
turn him "upside down"--dao--and shake him a bit (sometimes, a lot),
which would usually "right" his sense again. Yup, that's "dao ke dao."
>
> not this again.
You can say that again.
:)
IS
a wayfarer
Zhou posted on May 11: " . . . an interpolation turned into a great
passion."
The same thing happened to me. That's why I question sometimes when
others attack or defend one translation or another.
A commercial hack re-packaged interpolation might initiate a life-long
journey of discovery and understanding, and the most thoroughly
researchead academic accomplishment may be set aside unfinished.
And, of course, that means . . .
:)
aw
kamerm
news:24033-40A...@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
every interpretation, interpolation, reaction to the TTC
is meaningful to the one who creates it
Hence i read a.p.t :-)
-k
{8-])))
> j wondered:
Are you tired of doing that?
The impression I was getting
was that by going thru and sifting all the verses
you might be able to get a "truest" translation
if a compilation was then made.
I don't think Chris was after that
but it can be a good project for you to do.
In the comparisons you already stabbed at
did you arrive at any conclusions?
{8-])))
> don wrote:
>> jay had written:
>"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
>original is silly."
The point of there being no point
is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
>Hint:
>"get the meaning of the words, and forget about words."--CT--
>"in studying Tao, reduce the garbage/verbiage day by day, until
>there's none."--TTC--
Even tho the words vary
and there is no "best" or "truest"
or "deepest" or "largest" domain,
the stink of such shit remains.
>> > We can begin, again,
>> > if you wish, with "Tao."
>> > Ought it be translated as "Way"
>> > or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
>> > or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
>> > or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
>> > or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
>> > "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
>> > and in the second instance meaning
>> > some other thing?
>
>You missed "upside down."
I've never heard of that connotation.
>> Why?
>
>When I was in my teens, a few of my buddies would get together and
>bullshit quite often. One of the guys would lose his argument, and to
>save his face, he would continue arguing insensibly, and eventually he
>would turn into a shameless denial. Then, we would grab his ankles and
>turn him "upside down"--dao--and shake him a bit (sometimes, a lot),
>which would usually "right" his sense again. Yup, that's "dao ke dao."
>
>>
>> not this again.
>
>You can say that again.
Tanks!
Now eye kin goes back
and answer the rest of yer quest'ions.
>:)
>IS
<o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
yes, that when there is a significant difference
between translations of a particular verse,
one or the other is bound to be closer to
what the author(s) originally meant to say,
don't you think?
I don't think the text has been so distorted
over the ages that this is futile.
It is uncanny how much of the ttc is in the
wen-tzu, practically word for word.
it would be interesting to identify each of
the chapters from the ttc in the wen-tzu
just to see how many are in there and where.
a wayfarer
k-
How far did your "intuition compared to imagination" posts progress a
while ago?
&
In terms befitting a group devoted to philosphizing about taoism, did
you say you associated "intuition" w/ the "intellectual" mind, or the
"emotional" mind?
I stopped following that thread for some reason.
:)
aw
kamerm
>
> k-
>
> How far did your "intuition compared to imagination" posts progress a
> while ago?
for me? jest the one to Moon
Keynes had an interesting response (paste togethor without spaces)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6q1h90turcrm1f81l3ea8ko95iam60drpl%404a
x.com&output=gplain
here's the whole thread
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=40a6b82f%240%2489
87%24afc38c87%40news.optusnet.com.au&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dintuition%2Bg
roup:alt.philosophy.taoism
not a bad topic for searching, too --
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=intuition%20imagination&safe=images&ie=
UTF-8&as_ugroup=alt.philosophy.taoism&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
> &
>
> In terms befitting a group devoted to philosphizing about taoism, did
> you say you associated "intuition" w/ the "intellectual" mind, or the
> "emotional" mind?
sounding a bit like IS here --
if you can single it out, it's knot acting harmoniously with the whole
> I stopped following that thread for some reason.
>
> :)
> aw
fwiw :-)
-k
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> > don wrote:
> >> jay had written:
>
> >"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
> >original is silly."
>
> The point of there being no point
> is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
The hidden caveat is, a wrong question leads to a wrong answer, a
wrong answer leads to a wrong action, and a wrong action achieves a
wrong result. It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the
wrong path you are on is because the wrong question you ask today.
>
> >Hint:
> >"get the meaning of the words, and forget about words."--CT--
> >"in studying Tao, reduce the garbage/verbiage day by day, until
> >there's none."--TTC--
>
> Even tho the words vary
> and there is no "best" or "truest"
> or "deepest" or "largest" domain,
> the stink of such shit remains.
To say those labels won't make a shield for you this time.
And any "best" "truest" translation that covers the "deepest" and
"largest" doamin must "cover"/equate/agree with above statements, as
they are valid ones of "all counters."
>
> >> > We can begin, again,
> >> > if you wish, with "Tao."
> >> > Ought it be translated as "Way"
> >> > or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
> >> > or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
> >> > or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
> >> > or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
> >> > "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
> >> > and in the second instance meaning
> >> > some other thing?
> >
> >You missed "upside down."
>
> I've never heard of that connotation.
Along with oh maybe other 35 Chinese characters that would pronounce
and spell as "tao/dao."
>
> >> Why?
> >
> >When I was in my teens, a few of my buddies would get together and
> >bullshit quite often. One of the guys would lose his argument, and to
> >save his face, he would continue arguing insensibly, and eventually he
> >would turn into a shameless denial. Then, we would grab his ankles and
> >turn him "upside down"--dao--and shake him a bit (sometimes, a lot),
> >which would usually "right" his sense again. Yup, that's "dao ke dao."
> >
> >>
> >> not this again.
> >
> >You can say that again.
>
> Tanks!
Just pulling your legs, ;)
> Now eye kin goes back
> and answer the rest of yer quest'ions.
"right"side up?
:)
IS
![{:-]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUGVaoKRdKuRuCt__DoTUxCWAUHbGm37q5EqVmsiWwbtNDu7w=s40-c)
{:-]
> jay wrote:
> > ichin wrote:
> > >jay wrote:
> > >>is wrote:
> > >>>jb wrote:
>
> > >> You have no idea what I mean
> > >> when I say, "path that can be walked"?
> > >> You are entirely unable to understand this?
> > >
> > >You do?
> >
> > You don't?
>
> Not for a translation of "Tao Ke Tao," no, I don't.
Ah, well, I took the time to ask some of my associates
if they could understand it. And, well, they did.
The vast majority of them did.
Thus, your assertion was absolutely wrong.
> > >"what," "where," "when," "why," "how," the "path" you were
> > >talking about?
> >
> > Apparently you don't fully understand.
> > Or perhaps you are simply trolling.
> > Never-the-less, by your inclusion
> > of '"what," "where," "when," "why," "how,"'
> > you obviously do have some idea.
>
> The "some idea" you've shown that I have was to say that your idea
> don't go beyond those labels.
That is, of course, to you.
> > >> How strange. Most curious.
> > >
> > >To say I know you have no/little idea about what is "Xing-Er-Xia," and
> > >its relationship with "Xing-Er-Shang."
> >
> > To say you know I have no/little idea
> > between physical and metaphysical
>
> While "what" "idea" you have about/between physical and metaphysical
> remains to be seen, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what makes
> Xing-Er-Xia, or simply "physical."
You are absolutely correct.
> > is typical of your trolling.
>
> The cheap shining thing is "Xing-Er-Xia,"
Since I have no idea what you're talking about
the cheap shining thing you flash around
is yours to keep on keeping on.
> > Which is it, "no" or "little"?
>
> You actually distinguish them?
At times. Don't you?
> > >> >> All it takes is one to disprove.
> > >> >> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
> > >> >
> > >> >a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
> > >>
> > >> No such thing as metaphysical
> > >> or metaphorical path in Chinese?
> > >
> > >Not sure,
> >
> > So now you are not so sure.
>
> Yup,
How silly then.
> not sure about your metaphysical or metaphorical part, to say I'm
> not quite willing to call a square peg in a round hole a "fit,"
That's okay.
> > >given the example you gave below.
> >
> > Now you are unsure.
>
> given the example you gave below,
Above, below. Largest, smallest. Shallow, deep.
Silly stuff. Isit knot?
> > >What is the subject of "your"
> >
> > Here you shift, once again,
> > the emphasis from the original subject
> > and topic and focus of Chris
> > and what the presumed writer or writers of the
> > text meant to what it is that "I" mean.
>
> and how you chop, dice, slice and parse
> individually, according to your mutated ego denial,
Are you compelled to paint stripes?
Or is it just your silly nature?
> > >metaphysical and "what" is "your"
> > >"metaphorical path"?
> >
> > People chop, dice, slice, and parse
> > individually, according to such a paradigm
> > that you imply by your question.
>
> Fancy to see how you partition yourself out the predicament, so you
> think.
Your projections are entirely your own
shiney toys you play width at length.
> > The implication is that the original intent of the
> > text, the truest translation, will necessarily be
> > metaphorical or metaphysical.
>
> The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> TTC describes?
Hmmm, I think I answered that alread.
I think that you think it describes one or the other.
Paradigms are delimiting. Such is simply a way to think.
Actually, I think the TTC can be interpreted in lots of waze.
It can point to metaphysics and apply teh, metaphorically.
You may wish to fix the meaning. Such is simply how you are.
> > This might be slightely different
> > from what rick has suggested.
>
> Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> it's the wordswords--bullshit.
Silly, are not you knot?
> > >> Be that as it may, apparently there is
> > >> such a use of "path" in English,
> > >> e.g. spiritual path.
> > >
> > >You mean "path"="spiritual path"?
> >
> > That, or any metaphysical way.
> > The concept revolves around metaphor
> > and what is beyond physics to measure.
>
> No,
Yes.
> any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is
> just hot air.
In your paradigm.
> A beaten "path" may not have anything "spiritual" about it.
Such is the silly stuff you pursue.
> > > Or you forgot how English works already?
> >
> > In English there are denotations and connotations.
>
> And you don't know that the "spiritual" part of "spiritual path" is
> from the "spiritual" and actually has nothing to do with "path"?
If you parse it as such, then no.
If you see it otherwise then it does.
You are free to do as you please.
Silly you. Just how silly are you?
> > If there was one and only one right way to
> > translated the text, to be closest or truest to
> > the original intent, then there would not now be
> > such a great number of translations.
>
> Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
> be valid in all encounters.
So, in your view,
there is a truest, most correct, way of translating.
And which translation did you say is the closest?
> > You might, at
> > some time in the future, modify your own version.
>
> Changing in appearance may not invalidate the principle within.
Silly people do silly things.
> > Such is how not only English idiomatic expressions
> > serve their purpose, but also how archaeology
> > tends to add to how a text is interpreted.
>
> I did say that you couldn't study Taoism in English alone.
You did say quite a lot of things.
Some are more silly than others.
> > >> You presume
> > >> that Miller or Nadine are unable
> > >> to grok such a n'ocean?
> > >
> > >You mean when you say "path" they'd know you mean "spiritual path"?
> >
> > No. I mean that they can understand
> > what the statement, all by itself, can mean.
>
> Yup, we see that,
Silly, taint it.
> > The word, words, phrase, phrases, line and lines
> > can have denotation and connotation.
>
> However, question remains, how does the Xing-Er-Xia "path" "denote and
> connote" to the Xing-Er-Shang Tao?
That is the quest'ion, for you.
Others may immediately "know"
and feel no need to pursue such a quest.
> > How would you translate the term, "dao"?
>
> Upside down?
eye likesit!
> > >No, don't think they can grok such a n'ocean.
> >
> > That reveals the limit of your presumption.
> > Otoh, if either of them happen to say that they
> > can understand what the sentence meant
>
> We all know what that sentence meant,
Then you did understand it.
Why not just make up your mind
and keep from flip-flopping back and froth?
> but you seem keeping forgetting
> you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
What I was doing
was something other
than what you thought I was doing.
You can connect them however you want to.
> > then it disproves your original assertion.
>
> No, then they may be just as dumb as you or as dishonest as you,
> there's no proof.
The proof is
that they understood,
as do you, if you'll be honest, for a change.
> > >> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
> > >>
> > >> Might as well forget about
> > >> any translation being close to original then.
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > Because it's a closed set.
>
> Not really, you do have a body that reflects the same senses as other
> non-English speakers' bodies do, don't you?
Then your assertion is false.
> > >Find a translation that covers (remains valid in) the largest
> > >domain that will be close enough.
> >
> > This is the tack Newagers take
> > much to the dismay of some.
>
> Yup, this is the tack Newagers take
> to pretend they are not newagers.
Silly, aren't you.
> Actually, newager is not the problem, as the world evolves, but the
> worn-out dogma is.
Are you tired of your dogmatism?
> > >However, you may have to "walk" the rest of the Way/"path" to "know"
> > >what is said.
> >
> > So you do know what the sentence meant.
> > Why go thru pretending that you don't.?
>
> To say you don't know the difference between Xing-Er-Xia and
> Xing-Er-Shang.
In other words, you're just being silly.
> > >> The best one will obtain is something English,
> > >> ipso facto.
> > >
> > >"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
> >
> > Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
>
> Yup, no wonder you seem to be so confused.
That is simply you
who are perceiving your own lack
which results from dogmatism.
Maybe a being painter isn't your teh.
Instead of painting stripes, maybe you can
try something else to ensure a bozo is a bozo.
> > >> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
> > >>
> > >> Q.E.D.
> > >
> > >Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
> >
> > Tao, in the second instance,
> > means decide or describe?
>
> Don't you have to "decide" before you "describe"?
If you are dogmatic.
> Then again, maybe you don't.
eggs act li
> > If the term can connote several ideas
> > this opens the door to a number of translations.
>
> Why? So you can get confused forever more?
Maybe thinking doesn't work for you.
Probably you should stick to fishing or skiing
or some other physical types of activities.
On the other hand,
if you ever turn out the truest version
then maybe you can end your own confusion.
Then again,
you are a silly kind of individual.
> > >> >Michi (n.)
> > >> >When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
> > >> >means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
> > >> >pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
> > >> >great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
> > >> >considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
> > >> >this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
> > >> >--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
> > >>
> > >> Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
> > >> as is a real natural way to view history.
> > >
> > >Some cannot distinguish things but think they know things apart.
> >
> > Newagers of'ten-k dew asuch.
>
> Yup, especially a newager with wordswords.
Largest is not largest?
Deepest is not deepest?
How silly you are.
> > >> Others will chop, dice, and slice
> > >> in order to obtain the "original intended
> > >> meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
> > >
> > >Yes, if your "truest" has meaning.
> >
> > That's why I refer back to Chris
> > and suggest he might want to define,
> > for himself, what he means by his terminology.
>
> Interesting to see how you show interest in how other people think
> without knowing how yourself think.
You are, apparently, very silly.
Somebody asks a question.
You think I don't know how I think.
Do you really think that?
> > >> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thus, if so,
> > >> >> then any translation
> > >> >> which serves to evoke Unism
> > >> >> has done what the original intent was.
> > >> >
> > >> >Pretty much, yes.
> > >>
> > >> Then the spectrum has merged
> > >> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
> > >
> > >So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
> > >man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
> >
> > Actually, the old man said he didn't.
>
> To say you don't know how to read CT,
He didn't say that?
Somebody translated that he did.
How would you translate that passage?
Would your version be more true?
Now wouldn't that be silly?
> > Bugcatcher said he did after he could balance
> > several balls on top of each other.
> >
> > Wheelwright spoke of dead-men's ashes.
> >
> > Why the CT incorporates all of these,
> > plus the rest can put the matter to rest.
> > It looks at the situation from a variety
> > and implies the obvious, too sum.
>
> Yes, quite obviously,
Not to state the obvious.
> > Perspectival relativism
> > was not on rick's list of original intent.
>
> You missed the Unism.
Was that on his list?
Guess I must have missed it.
Don't recall it, at any rate.
Are you saying that your Unism
is the truest way to go in terms of translating?
Wouldn't that be silly?
> > >> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
> > >>
> > >> Not to be confused
> > >> with 'dao ke dao' and,
> > >> following such a schema,
> > >> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
> > >
> > >Very shrewd, what does that get you?
> >
> > Possibly closer to the original intent.
>
> Yup, very shrewd, what do you mean by "closer," and how do you
> measure?
Actually, I don't.
Which only goes to show
that such an interpretation
may not be the truest way to interpret.
But even to presume
that the there is a truest way
would, by your saying, be silly.
Another interpretation
is that there is no "chang ming"
and: "ming ke ming" is valid
but "fei chang ming" is the case.
> > >What is the "Ming itself"?
> >
> > What does the I-Ching say?
>
> I-Ching did not use the term.
How did such a term come to be
if the TTC emerged from the I-Ching?
> > >> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
> > >> given in English, is the truest or closest
> > >> to the original intent of the text?
> > >
> > >Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
> > >of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
> > >someone to write/translate that way first.
> >
> > Which brings it back to Chris
>
> Chris? I think he has moved on,
Let's not forget about <o>.
> > and why I suggested he define
> > what he meant by his terminology.
>
> only you hide behind his name shadow,
Such is your projection.
The idea of "topic" and "focus"
is something you easily lose
in your being silly
and upside-down.
> > >> > those who truly know
> > >> >I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> > >>
> > >> T'hats n'ice,
> > >> two-h'ears.
> > >>
> > >> >I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
> > >> >emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
> > >> >describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
> > >> >the middle kingdom, China.
> > >>
> > >> Forget about the wings.
> > >
> > >Wings follow the body naturally.
> >
> > Eagle has large wings.
> > Sparrow has small wings.
> > Both serve their purpose equally.
> >
> > To put large wings on a sparrow
> > might or might not be in keeping
> > with the original intent of the text.
> >
> > To clip the wings of an eagle
> > might keep it from flying away
> > but might not be the Way of Taoism.
>
> talking about something imaginary as though they real?
Not really.
> > >> >Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
> > >> >etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
> > >> >also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
> > >>
> > >> Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
> > >>
> > >> >And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
> > >> >than KZ.
> > >>
> > >> At least, accordion to legend.
> > >> Some will dispute such an assertion.
> > >
> > >Some will make everything as an assertion and dispute it to show as
> > >though they know something.
> >
> > Such as, "no Chinese would understand 'xyz'"?
>
> That was to say you might not learn Chinese but also lost your
> English, pretty much like the boy from Wei in CT's story.
Ah. Silly, isn't it.
> > >> Chris probably doesn't care by now.
> > >
> > >Wonder where is J now.
> >
> > Lemming checks headers.
>
> Lost in the cyberspace?
Sometimes I change t'hems.
Looks as if eye is still @home.
Imagine t'hats!
> > >> >You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
> > >>
> > >> I did?
> > >> You are sure of this?
> > >
> > >I was mistaken "aw" for "small tortoiseshell," nevertheless, your
> > >"misaddress" stands,
> >
> > What did I misaddress?
>
> "butterfly wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> butterfly wrote:
> >> >a wayfarer wrote:"
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
>
> Your pretension is pathetic.
You're being silly.
The writer who uses the term
has stated that it's in reference
to a butterfly, fwiw.
> > >> >and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
> > >>
> > >> That was a mistake.
> > >> In the same post I used 'don'.
> > >> The two are not the same.
> > >> <o> ispears.
> > >
> > >whatever.
> >
> > It's your quibble.
>
> Your verbiage.
Silly stuff
and non-sensicles.
> > >> >do you
> > >> >really know who the "original poster" is?
> > >>
> > >> Chris, iirc.
> > >
> > >No longer push "original" back to shaman spells and the beginning of
> > >the world?
> >
> > That's an option.
> > It would be up to Chris to decide.
>
> Get stuck with Chris, eh?
Keep refreshing your screen.
Think: "topic, subject, thread."
> > >> >"How does one decide?"
> > >> >
> > >> >"How can one be sure?"
> > >> >
> > >> >???
> > >>
> > >> That's the question;
> > >
> > >And the answer was given,
> >
> > And here we are.
>
> In your perpetuated motion of wiggle.
You are the silly fisher-dude.
With a can of paint, shiney toys,
and other things you employ.
> > >> eye dew believes you've gotsit.
> > >
> > >surprised that you didn't get it;
> >
> > Didn't get "what"?
>
> The meaning of words.
which Ones?
zero
> "{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message news:<asnea09landpugikr...@4ax.com>...
> > ichin wrote:
> > > don wrote:
> > >> jay had written:
>
> > >"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
> > >original is silly."
> >
> > The point of there being no point
> > is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
>
> The hidden caveat is, a wrong question leads to a wrong answer, a
> wrong answer leads to a wrong action, and a wrong action achieves a
> wrong result. It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the
> wrong path you are on is because the wrong question you ask today.
wrong path?
wrong question?
wrong answer?
Wrong Action?
Wrong Result?
that samurai in you is speaking again.... your set of rules perhaps a
great code for you but please don't even try to pass it off here as
taoism, zen or any part of it... perhaps a perverted japanese form of
zen bushido budhism? or were you just joking in the above post? :-)
cause it was funny...
{:-]
> jay wrote:
> > ichin wrote:
> > >jay wrote:
> > [ ... ichin wrote: ...]
> >
> > >The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> > >metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> > >TTC describes?
> >
> > By your standards, metaphorical.
>
> Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
In terms of TTC 1
my tendency is to lean
toward punctuating the phrases after "ming"
and thus inflect without-naming and with-naming
as being a possible interpretation of the passages.
Language is metaphysical by nature.
You assert that metaphysical describes properties beyond forms.
Tis a semantical quibble. Silly.
Another way I address 'wu' and 'you'
revolves around Nonbeing and Being.
Another way is in terms of undifferentiated
and differentiated forms of consciousness.
Each of the three ways of interpreting
can yield possible inspirations. When I asked
one of my associates about "dao ke dao"
he immediately recognized it as the Laozi
and said it has to do with the idea
that there is no absolute truth.
He said dao, in this sense, can mean "truth"
or "reason" and that it's all relative.
> > Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> > authority would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
>
> Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> his spokesman would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
Is th'air an echo in h'ears?
Since I did not offer any truest translation
there isn't really any authority to cite.
Since you think the quest is silly
he won't be citing any translation you provide either.
Since you think it's silly, probably you won't finish yours.
> > >> This might be slightely different
> > >> from what rick has suggested.
> > >
> > >Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> > >it's the wordswords--bullshit.
> >
> > So, back to Chris' question;
>
> Only three posts, you're already experiencing persona split?
If that is what you see
then that is what you see.
> The following question is definitely not Chris's,
>
> > based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> > and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> > which translation do you think, feel, or know
> > is closest to the original text's meaning?
It was based upon o's idea
coupled with your thoughts.
> For how to find a "largest domain" you need a quite bit of math
> training, and I-Ching? Forget it.
It was, as you say, a silly idea.
> To say your knowledge has too many holes and gaps to even begin to
> comprehend the answer.
Okay.
A silly answer it would be, at best.
> Yup, answer was given.
So you have reiterated.
> > > ... you seem keeping forgetting
> > >you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
> >
> > I'm not forgetting anything
> > but you are fond of projecting.
> > The connection was with respect
> > to the subject and topic, remember?
>
> Yup, your "path"="spiritual path" is really shrewd.
If that's how you see it.
> > >Chris? I think he has moved on,
> >
> > Maybe you will answer his question.
> > Perhaps you will offer, tho incomplete,
> > http://www.taomartialarts.com/ttc/ttc_main.html
> > as _the_ translation closest to the original, eh?
>
> Not really, the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to
> the original is silly.
>
> To say you guys danced around a fire quite nicely.
Some people dance
in order to get to the end of a song
or to find the shortest round across the floor.
> > >> What did I misaddress?
> > >
> > >"butterfly wrote:
> > >>jay wrote:
> > >>> butterfly wrote:
> > >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> > >
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> > >
> > >Your pretension is pathetic.
> >
> > Your ignorance is astounding.
> > I did not misaddress anything.
> > Figure it out.
> > http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
>
> Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
> a butterfly?
Twas a small difference.
Obviously, you were unable to tell in the first place
and projected your own erroneous silly stuff
as is so often the case.
> :)
> IS
{:-]
> jay wrote:
> > ichin wrote:
> > >jay wrote:
> > [ ... ichin wrote: ...]
> >
> > >The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> > >metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> > >TTC describes?
> >
> > By your standards, metaphorical.
>
> Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
In terms of TTC 1
my tendency is to lean
toward punctuating the phrases after "ming"
and thus inflect without-naming and with-naming
as being a possible interpretation of the passages.
Language is metaphysical by nature.
You assert that metaphysical describes properties beyond forms.
Tis a semantical quibble. Silly.
Another way I address 'wu' and 'you'
revolves around Nonbeing and Being.
Another way is in terms of undifferentiated
and differentiated forms of consciousness.
Each of the three ways of interpreting
can yield possible inspirations. When I asked
one of my associates about "dao ke dao"
he immediately recognized it as the Laozi
and said it has to do with the idea
that there is no absolute truth.
He said dao, in this sense, can mean "truth"
or "reason" and that it's all relative.
> > Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> > authority would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
>
> Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> his spokesman would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
Is th'air an echo in h'ears?
Since I did not offer any truest translation
there isn't really any authority to cite.
Since you think the quest is silly
he won't be citing any translation you provide either.
Since you think it's silly, probably you won't finish yours.
> > >> This might be slightely different
> > >> from what rick has suggested.
> > >
> > >Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> > >it's the wordswords--bullshit.
> >
> > So, back to Chris' question;
>
> Only three posts, you're already experiencing persona split?
If that is what you see
then that is what you see.
> The following question is definitely not Chris's,
>
> > based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> > and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> > which translation do you think, feel, or know
> > is closest to the original text's meaning?
It was based upon o's idea
coupled with your thoughts.
> For how to find a "largest domain" you need a quite bit of math
> training, and I-Ching? Forget it.
It was, as you say, a silly idea.
> To say your knowledge has too many holes and gaps to even begin to
> comprehend the answer.
Okay.
A silly answer it would be, at best.
> Yup, answer was given.
So you have reiterated.
> > > ... you seem keeping forgetting
> > >you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
> >
> > I'm not forgetting anything
> > but you are fond of projecting.
> > The connection was with respect
> > to the subject and topic, remember?
>
> Yup, your "path"="spiritual path" is really shrewd.
If that's how you see it.
> > >Chris? I think he has moved on,
> >
> > Maybe you will answer his question.
> > Perhaps you will offer, tho incomplete,
> > http://www.taomartialarts.com/ttc/ttc_main.html
> > as _the_ translation closest to the original, eh?
>
> Not really, the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to
> the original is silly.
>
> To say you guys danced around a fire quite nicely.
Some people dance
in order to get to the end of a song
or to find the shortest round across the floor.
> > >> What did I misaddress?
> > >
> > >"butterfly wrote:
> > >>jay wrote:
> > >>> butterfly wrote:
> > >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> > >
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> > >
> > >Your pretension is pathetic.
> >
> > Your ignorance is astounding.
> > I did not misaddress anything.
> > Figure it out.
> > http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
>
> Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
> a butterfly?
Twas a small difference.
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> ichin wrote:
>> > don wrote:
>> >> jay had written:
>>
>> >"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
>> >original is silly."
>>
>> The point of there being no point
>> is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
>
>The hidden caveat is, a wrong question leads to a wrong answer, a
>wrong answer leads to a wrong action, and a wrong action achieves a
>wrong result. It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the
>wrong path you are on is because the wrong question you ask today.
>
>>
>> >Hint:
>> >"get the meaning of the words, and forget about words."--CT--
>> >"in studying Tao, reduce the garbage/verbiage day by day, until
>> >there's none."--TTC--
>>
>> Even tho the words vary
>> and there is no "best" or "truest"
>> or "deepest" or "largest" domain,
>> the stink of such shit remains.
>
>To say those labels won't make a shield for you this time.
Why do you suppose I am making a shield?
>And any "best" "truest" translation that covers the "deepest" and
>"largest" doamin must "cover"/equate/agree with above statements, as
>they are valid ones of "all counters."
So, let me see if I get what you're saying.
There can be more than one "best"
and there can be more than one "truest"
and it really isn't silly?
>> >> > We can begin, again,
>> >> > if you wish, with "Tao."
>> >> > Ought it be translated as "Way"
>> >> > or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
>> >> > or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
>> >> > or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
>> >> > or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
>> >> > "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
>> >> > and in the second instance meaning
>> >> > some other thing?
>> >
>> >You missed "upside down."
>>
>> I've never heard of that connotation.
>
>Along with oh maybe other 35 Chinese characters that would pronounce
>and spell as "tao/dao."
Guess it would be silly
to try and find any best or truest
let alone the best or truest
translation of the text.
Or, then again, perhaps not.
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >When I was in my teens, a few of my buddies would get together and
>> >bullshit quite often. One of the guys would lose his argument, and to
>> >save his face, he would continue arguing insensibly, and eventually he
>> >would turn into a shameless denial. Then, we would grab his ankles and
>> >turn him "upside down"--dao--and shake him a bit (sometimes, a lot),
>> >which would usually "right" his sense again. Yup, that's "dao ke dao."
>> >
>> >>
>> >> not this again.
>> >
>> >You can say that again.
>>
>> Tanks!
>
>Just pulling your legs, ;)
naturally
>> Now eye kin goes back
>> and answer the rest of yer quest'ions.
>
>"right"side up?
side waze,
as is, unusally,
ones of m'eye way
>:)
>IS
<o>
"{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message
> o wrote:
> > j wrote:
> >> o wrote:
> >> > j wondered:
> >>
> >> >> Then why bring it up, again?
> >> >> Which verses do you think are closer to the
> >> >> original? Which are truest?
> >> >
> >> >i've already made a stab at
> >> >comparing verses from different
> >> >translations twice in this thread.
> >>
> >> Are you tired of doing that?
> >>
> >> The impression I was getting
> >> was that by going thru and sifting all the verses
> >> you might be able to get a "truest" translation
> >> if a compilation was then made.
> >>
> >> I don't think Chris was after that
> >> but it can be a good project for you to do.
> >> In the comparisons you already stabbed at
> >> did you arrive at any conclusions?
> >
> >yes, that when there is a significant difference
> >between translations of a particular verse,
> >one or the other is bound to be closer to
> >what the author(s) originally meant to say,
> >don't you think?
>
>
> >I don't think the text has been so distorted
> >over the ages that this is futile.
> >It is uncanny how much of the ttc is in the
> >wen-tzu, practically word for word.
> >it would be interesting to identify each of
> >the chapters from the ttc in the wen-tzu
> >just to see how many are in there and where.
>
>
> Here's what somebody had to say.
> "A copy of the Wenzi was also found at Dingzhou.
> The Wenzi is an ancient work listed among the
> philosophical texts in the Han dynasty imperial
> library catalogue. Scholars have long been
> suspiciousabout the authenticity of the
> transmitted text.The Dingzhou manuscript has been
> studied by Imre Galambos, a Ph.D student at
> Berkeley who has been working with me on materials
> such as these. I am also indebted to Imre for his
> help in puttingtogether this presentation.
> Ninety-three fragmentary strips of the Wenzi
> survive. Imre Galambos has shown, in his Berkeley
> M.A. thesis, that this discovery confirms that the
> transmitted Wenzi is a forgery largely copied from
> the Huainanzi."
>
> Here's what somebody else said.
>
> -begin quote}
> An alternative reading of the Huainanzi: the Wenzi
>
> Nearly four-fifths of the received Wenzi
> correspond to the received Huainanzi. This
> extraordinary overlap of content has led to an
> intriguing controversy: Was the Wenzi copied from
> the Huainanzi, or vice versa? Through the
> centuries, both positions were fervently
> supported. Though advocates of the Huainanzi as
> the "original text" outnumbered their opponents,
> neither of the camps came up with ultimate
> evidence, leaving the question unresolved.
>
> The excavation in 1973 of a Former Han tomb near
> Dingzhou (Hebei province) yielded an exemplar of
> the Wenzi written on bamboo that differs markedly
> from the textus receptus. In addition, the
> official transcription of the manuscript
> (published in 1995) showed that the Dingzhou Wenzi
> strips correspond near-exclusively to the
> one-fifth of the received Wenzi not found in the
> Huainanzi. Hence, the Dingzhou find effectively
> ended the Wenzi controversy, proving that the
> received Wenzi stems from two independent source
> texts: an original version of the Wenzi, and the
> Huainanzi.
>
> Although the Dingzhou discovery resolved various
> issues concerning the textual status of the
> received Wenzi, many philosophical questions
> remain:
>
> Can we speak of a "philosophy of the Wenzi" when
> four-fifths of the work are copied from the
> Huainanzi?
> If so, what are the key features of the philosophy
> of the Wenzi?
> Why were the original Wenzi and the Huainanzi
> linked together in the first place?
> Which aspects of the Huainanzi interested the
> editor(s) of the Wenzi, and which parts were left
> untouched?
> Does the "original Wenzi-core", despite the fact
> that it constitutes less than one-fifth of the
> received Wenzi, dominate the "Huainanzi-material"
> in the text, so that the latter merely serves as
> explanation or illustration the former?
> Or is the "Huainanzi-material" so overwhelming
> that the received Wenzi is merely an alternative
> reading of the Huainanzi? {end quote-
>
> Are you familiar with the Huainanzi?
http://rels.queensu.ca/dao/daoismconf.abstracts.php#VANELS
(oh oh Canada)
i am familar, but only from the introduction in Cleary's wen-tzu,
"In terms of its contents, the Wen-tzu presents
a distillation of the teachings of its predecessors,
especially the Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, and
the Huianan-tzu. It particularly follows the latter
in its inclusion of selected material from Confucian,
Legalist, and Naturalist schools of thought.
In addition, the Wen-tzu also contains a tremendous
amount of other proverbial and aphoristic lore that
is not to be found in its predecessors."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/tgl/
http://www.hermitary.com/house/taoism.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345425685/104-8641429-1668736?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877736677/qid=1084792989/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2766546-6654511?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1570629056/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-2766546-6654511?v=glance&s=books
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> > jay wrote:
> > > ichin wrote:
> > > >jay wrote:
> > > >>is wrote:
> > > >>>jb wrote:
>
> > > >> You have no idea what I mean
> > > >> when I say, "path that can be walked"?
> > > >> You are entirely unable to understand this?
> > > >
> > > >You do?
> > >
> > > You don't?
> >
> > Not for a translation of "Tao Ke Tao," no, I don't.
>
> Ah, well, I took the time to ask some of my associates
> if they could understand it. And, well, they did.
Really? What do they understand? The "path", or "Tao"?
> The vast majority of them did.
Like you did?
> Thus, your assertion was absolutely wrong.
Hehehe...
>
> > > >"what," "where," "when," "why," "how," the "path" you were
> > > >talking about?
> > >
> > > Apparently you don't fully understand.
> > > Or perhaps you are simply trolling.
> > > Never-the-less, by your inclusion
> > > of '"what," "where," "when," "why," "how,"'
> > > you obviously do have some idea.
> >
> > The "some idea" you've shown that I have was to say that your idea
> > don't go beyond those labels.
>
> That is, of course, to you.
Yup, "The 'some idea' you've shown that I have was to say that your
idea don't go beyond those labels."
>
> > > >> How strange. Most curious.
> > > >
> > > >To say I know you have no/little idea about what is "Xing-Er-Xia," and
> > > >its relationship with "Xing-Er-Shang."
> > >
> > > To say you know I have no/little idea
> > > between physical and metaphysical
> >
> > While "what" "idea" you have about/between physical and metaphysical
> > remains to be seen, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what makes
> > Xing-Er-Xia, or simply "physical."
>
> You are absolutely correct.
Yup, read you like an open book.
>
> > > is typical of your trolling.
> >
> > The cheap shining thing is "Xing-Er-Xia,"
>
> Since I have no idea what you're talking about
> the cheap shining thing you flash around
> is yours to keep on keeping on.
Yup, with you dangle on it, wiggle.
>
> > > Which is it, "no" or "little"?
> >
> > You actually distinguish them?
>
> At times. Don't you?
No, not at this level.
>
> > > >> >> All it takes is one to disprove.
> > > >> >> But perhaps you mean, figuratively.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >a "path" is Xing-Er-Xia, and Tao is Xing-Er-Shang.
> > > >>
> > > >> No such thing as metaphysical
> > > >> or metaphorical path in Chinese?
> > > >
> > > >Not sure,
> > >
> > > So now you are not so sure.
> >
> > Yup,
>
> How silly then.
That's okay.
>
> > not sure about your metaphysical or metaphorical part, to say I'm
> > not quite willing to call a square peg in a round hole a "fit,"
>
> That's okay.
How silly then.
>
> > > >given the example you gave below.
> > >
> > > Now you are unsure.
> >
> > given the example you gave below,
>
> Above, below. Largest, smallest. Shallow, deep.
> Silly stuff. Isit knot?
Not really, confused stuff more likely.
>
> > > >What is the subject of "your"
> > >
> > > Here you shift, once again,
> > > the emphasis from the original subject
> > > and topic and focus of Chris
> > > and what the presumed writer or writers of the
> > > text meant to what it is that "I" mean.
> >
> > and how you chop, dice, slice and parse
> > individually, according to your mutated ego denial,
>
> Are you compelled to paint stripes?
No, knowing that you are compelled to do it, as you did it before, and
to give you a hand,
> Or is it just your silly nature?
I only setup the canvas, to see, how silly would it be to be played by
a silly.
>
> > > >metaphysical and "what" is "your"
> > > >"metaphorical path"?
> > >
> > > People chop, dice, slice, and parse
> > > individually, according to such a paradigm
> > > that you imply by your question.
> >
> > Fancy to see how you partition yourself out the predicament, so you
> > think.
>
> Your projections are entirely your own
> shiney toys you play width at length.
"so you think."
>
> > > The implication is that the original intent of the
> > > text, the truest translation, will necessarily be
> > > metaphorical or metaphysical.
> >
> > The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> > metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> > TTC describes?
>
> Hmmm, I think I answered that alread.
> I think that you think it describes one or the other.
> Paradigms are delimiting. Such is simply a way to think.
>
> Actually, I think the TTC can be interpreted in lots of waze.
Oh yes, that's what makes it Xing-Er-Shang,
> It can point to metaphysics and apply teh, metaphorically.
Actually, it has to. Yin Yang He He--harmonized Yin and Yang--is what
makes Tao Chang, the central theme of Chinese Taoism. And it is when
the metaphorically doesn't touch the ground, the Xing-Er-Shang turns
into a hot-air.
> You may wish to fix the meaning. Such is simply how you are.
You may deny that you try to fix the meaning, but don't know how.
>
> > > This might be slightely different
> > > from what rick has suggested.
> >
> > Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> > it's the wordswords--bullshit.
>
> Silly, are not you knot?
That's what some silly people say.
>
> > > >> Be that as it may, apparently there is
> > > >> such a use of "path" in English,
> > > >> e.g. spiritual path.
> > > >
> > > >You mean "path"="spiritual path"?
> > >
> > > That, or any metaphysical way.
> > > The concept revolves around metaphor
> > > and what is beyond physics to measure.
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes.
"Yes" about what?
>
> > any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is
> > just hot air.
>
> In your paradigm.
True enough.
>
> > A beaten "path" may not have anything "spiritual" about it.
>
> Such is the silly stuff you pursue.
Not really, the "path" is your translation.
>
> > > > Or you forgot how English works already?
> > >
> > > In English there are denotations and connotations.
> >
> > And you don't know that the "spiritual" part of "spiritual path" is
> > from the "spiritual" and actually has nothing to do with "path"?
>
> If you parse it as such, then no.
Yes, that's the Way of English.
> If you see it otherwise then it does.
How do you see "otherwise," and how "many" "otherwise" you see in the
word "path," and why?
> You are free to do as you please.
Not really,
> Silly you. Just how silly are you?
see how you get stuck on the "silly" thing. Are you free?
>
> > > If there was one and only one right way to
> > > translated the text, to be closest or truest to
> > > the original intent, then there would not now be
> > > such a great number of translations.
> >
> > Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
> > be valid in all encounters.
>
> So, in your view,
> there is a truest, most correct, way of translating.
Yes, if your "truest" and "most correct" have meanings.
> And which translation did you say is the closest?
I didn't say, nevertheless, you need to know "what" "the closest" mean
first, and how do you measure it?
>
> > > You might, at
> > > some time in the future, modify your own version.
> >
> > Changing in appearance may not invalidate the principle within.
>
> Silly people do silly things.
What people do makes what people are.
>
> > > Such is how not only English idiomatic expressions
> > > serve their purpose, but also how archaeology
> > > tends to add to how a text is interpreted.
> >
> > I did say that you couldn't study Taoism in English alone.
>
> You did say quite a lot of things.
> Some are more silly than others.
That's what some silly people say.
>
> > > >> You presume
> > > >> that Miller or Nadine are unable
> > > >> to grok such a n'ocean?
> > > >
> > > >You mean when you say "path" they'd know you mean "spiritual path"?
> > >
> > > No. I mean that they can understand
> > > what the statement, all by itself, can mean.
> >
> > Yup, we see that,
>
> Silly, taint it.
Yes, silly,
>
> > > The word, words, phrase, phrases, line and lines
> > > can have denotation and connotation.
> >
> > However, question remains, how does the Xing-Er-Xia "path" "denote and
> > connote" to the Xing-Er-Shang Tao?
>
> That is the quest'ion, for you.
> Others may immediately "know"
> and feel no need to pursue such a quest.
when you don't know that you don't know.
>
> > > How would you translate the term, "dao"?
> >
> > Upside down?
>
> eye likesit!
Yup, but it's a translation of a wrong character.
>
> > > >No, don't think they can grok such a n'ocean.
> > >
> > > That reveals the limit of your presumption.
> > > Otoh, if either of them happen to say that they
> > > can understand what the sentence meant
> >
> > We all know what that sentence meant,
>
> Then you did understand it.
> Why not just make up your mind
> and keep from flip-flopping back and froth?
Because your sentence fell short of what you tried to translate.
>
> > but you seem keeping forgetting
> > you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
>
> What I was doing
> was something other
> than what you thought I was doing.
Maybe,
>
> You can connect them however you want to.
yup, "pretend" you know long enough then it'll become all you know.
>
> > > then it disproves your original assertion.
> >
> > No, then they may be just as dumb as you or as dishonest as you,
> > there's no proof.
>
> The proof is
> that they understood,
No, you have to "prove" they understood first, and given the "parsing"
nature of English, don't think that they would agree with you.
> as do you, if you'll be honest, for a change.
To say you have no idea how to "prove" things.
>
> > > >> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
> > > >>
> > > >> Might as well forget about
> > > >> any translation being close to original then.
> > > >
> > > >Why?
> > >
> > > Because it's a closed set.
> >
> > Not really, you do have a body that reflects the same senses as other
> > non-English speakers' bodies do, don't you?
>
> Then your assertion is false.
No, "closed set" is your conclusion.
To say that you don't know what you don't know.
>
> > > >Find a translation that covers (remains valid in) the largest
> > > >domain that will be close enough.
> > >
> > > This is the tack Newagers take
> > > much to the dismay of some.
> >
> > Yup, this is the tack Newagers take
> > to pretend they are not newagers.
>
> Silly, aren't you.
Not really, "silly" is only a "tailgunner," a small hook that attached
and trailing behind the cheap shining thing, to "see how you get stuck
on the "silly" thing."
>
> > Actually, newager is not the problem, as the world evolves, but the
> > worn-out dogma is.
>
> Are you tired of your dogmatism?
Dogmatism is when you quoting ancient teaching without understanding,
and that's your specialty.
>
> > > >However, you may have to "walk" the rest of the Way/"path" to "know"
> > > >what is said.
> > >
> > > So you do know what the sentence meant.
> > > Why go thru pretending that you don't.?
> >
> > To say you don't know the difference between Xing-Er-Xia and
> > Xing-Er-Shang.
>
> In other words, you're just being silly.
That's what some silly people say.
>
> > > >> The best one will obtain is something English,
> > > >> ipso facto.
> > > >
> > > >"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
> >
> > Yup, no wonder you seem to be so confused.
>
> That is simply you
> who are perceiving your own lack
> which results from dogmatism.
Or simply you are so confused and have a persona split?
>
> Maybe a being painter isn't your teh.
> Instead of painting stripes, maybe you can
> try something else to ensure a bozo is a bozo.
You did make an accurate stripe, though crooked.
>
> > > >> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Q.E.D.
> > > >
> > > >Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
> > >
> > > Tao, in the second instance,
> > > means decide or describe?
> >
> > Don't you have to "decide" before you "describe"?
>
> If you are dogmatic.
No, any responsible person would ["decide" before "describe"].
>
> > Then again, maybe you don't.
>
> eggs act li
Yup, you don't.
>
> > > If the term can connote several ideas
> > > this opens the door to a number of translations.
> >
> > Why? So you can get confused forever more?
>
> Maybe thinking doesn't work for you.
Still confusing, eh?
> Probably you should stick to fishing or skiing
> or some other physical types of activities.
Try TaiChiKendo,
>
> On the other hand,
> if you ever turn out the truest version
> then maybe you can end your own confusion.
it'll cut through all you confused entanglements.
>
> Then again,
> you are a silly kind of individual.
That's what some silly people say.
>
> > > >> >Michi (n.)
> > > >> >When this Chinese character is pronounced 'michi,' the word generally
> > > >> >means road, and in Buddhism it means the "road" to enlightenment. When
> > > >> >pronounced 'do,' in Japan, where the influence of Confucianism is
> > > >> >great, it takes on the meaning of 'the human way' (morality) and was
> > > >> >considered to be the standard for life and behavior. It is used with
> > > >> >this meaning in the words Kendo, Judo, and Kyudo.
> > > >> >--Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo--
> > > >>
> > > >> Some will mix Taoism and Confucianism
> > > >> as is a real natural way to view history.
> > > >
> > > >Some cannot distinguish things but think they know things apart.
> > >
> > > Newagers of'ten-k dew asuch.
> >
> > Yup, especially a newager with wordswords.
>
> Largest is not largest?
> Deepest is not deepest?
To say not knowing which meaning of your many-meaning-English they
mean,
> How silly you are.
silly is when you don't know that you don't know.
>
> > > >> Others will chop, dice, and slice
> > > >> in order to obtain the "original intended
> > > >> meaning of the text" as "truest" and sew froth.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, if your "truest" has meaning.
> > >
> > > That's why I refer back to Chris
> > > and suggest he might want to define,
> > > for himself, what he means by his terminology.
> >
> > Interesting to see how you show interest in how other people think
> > without knowing how yourself think.
>
> You are, apparently, very silly.
You are, apparently, very boring.
> Somebody asks a question.
> You think I don't know how I think.
> Do you really think that?
No, [I don't think you don't know how to think,] only your shameless
denials, for what falls short of what you think you know.
>
> > > >> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thus, if so,
> > > >> >> then any translation
> > > >> >> which serves to evoke Unism
> > > >> >> has done what the original intent was.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Pretty much, yes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then the spectrum has merged
> > > >> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
> > > >
> > > >So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
> > > >man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
> > >
> > > Actually, the old man said he didn't.
> >
> > To say you don't know how to read CT,
>
> He didn't say that?
Yes, he did,
> Somebody translated that he did.
nevertheless, you need to know how to read the metaphor, [what is
followed?]
> How would you translate that passage?
>
> Would your version be more true?
> Now wouldn't that be silly?
Yup, it's more silly to speculate it.
>
> > > Bugcatcher said he did after he could balance
> > > several balls on top of each other.
> > >
> > > Wheelwright spoke of dead-men's ashes.
> > >
> > > Why the CT incorporates all of these,
> > > plus the rest can put the matter to rest.
> > > It looks at the situation from a variety
> > > and implies the obvious, too sum.
> >
> > Yes, quite obviously,
>
> Not to state the obvious.
>
> > > Perspectival relativism
> > > was not on rick's list of original intent.
> >
> > You missed the Unism.
>
> Was that on his list?
> Guess I must have missed it.
> Don't recall it, at any rate.
You do know what "Perspectival relativism" means, do you?
>
> Are you saying that your Unism
> is the truest way to go in terms of translating?
Yes, [if your "truest" has meaning.]
> Wouldn't that be silly?
There's no words/"silly" in Unism.
>
> > > >> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not to be confused
> > > >> with 'dao ke dao' and,
> > > >> following such a schema,
> > > >> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
> > > >
> > > >Very shrewd, what does that get you?
> > >
> > > Possibly closer to the original intent.
> >
> > Yup, very shrewd, what do you mean by "closer," and how do you
> > measure?
>
> Actually, I don't.
"what does that get you?"
> Which only goes to show
> that such an interpretation
> may not be the truest way to interpret.
Especially when your words don't touch/terminate at the "physical"
level.
>
> But even to presume
> that the there is a truest way
> would, by your saying, be silly.
No, [to produce a truest translation is not silly,] to chase after one
is [silly].
>
> Another interpretation
> is that there is no "chang ming"
> and: "ming ke ming" is valid
> but "fei chang ming" is the case.
When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
>
> > > >What is the "Ming itself"?
> > >
> > > What does the I-Ching say?
> >
> > I-Ching did not use the term.
>
> How did such a term come to be
> if the TTC emerged from the I-Ching?
Because such a term is written in Chinese.
>
> > > >> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
> > > >> given in English, is the truest or closest
> > > >> to the original intent of the text?
> > > >
> > > >Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
> > > >of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
> > > >someone to write/translate that way first.
> > >
> > > Which brings it back to Chris
> >
> > Chris? I think he has moved on,
>
> Let's not forget about <o>.
Let's not forget about J.
>
> > > and why I suggested he define
> > > what he meant by his terminology.
> >
> > only you hide behind his name shadow,
>
> Such is your projection.
> The idea of "topic" and "focus"
> is something you easily lose
> in your being silly
> and upside-down.
When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
>
> > > >> > those who truly know
> > > >> >I-Ching don't use I-Ching to seek foretelling.
> > > >>
> > > >> T'hats n'ice,
> > > >> two-h'ears.
> > > >>
> > > >> >I-Ching/Zhou-Yi, written by Zhou Wen-Wang, the father of the first
> > > >> >emperor of Zhou dynasty, is one of most complete Xing-Er-Shang book to
> > > >> >describe the environments and phenomenon that is known as Zhong-Guo,
> > > >> >the middle kingdom, China.
> > > >>
> > > >> Forget about the wings.
> > > >
> > > >Wings follow the body naturally.
> > >
> > > Eagle has large wings.
> > > Sparrow has small wings.
> > > Both serve their purpose equally.
> > >
> > > To put large wings on a sparrow
> > > might or might not be in keeping
> > > with the original intent of the text.
> > >
> > > To clip the wings of an eagle
> > > might keep it from flying away
> > > but might not be the Way of Taoism.
> >
> > talking about something imaginary as though they real?
>
> Not really.
So what's "wings" to do with "middle kingdom"?
>
> > > >> >Along with other classics such as Shi-Jing, Shu-Jing, and Rei-Jing,
> > > >> >etc., they formed not just the knowledge base for the ancients, but
> > > >> >also the meaning and usage of Chinese words/language.
> > > >>
> > > >> Reconstituted and instituted, sociologically.
> > > >>
> > > >> >And Zhou-Yi was written 500 years prior LZ, who was 50 years earlier
> > > >> >than KZ.
> > > >>
> > > >> At least, accordion to legend.
> > > >> Some will dispute such an assertion.
> > > >
> > > >Some will make everything as an assertion and dispute it to show as
> > > >though they know something.
> > >
> > > Such as, "no Chinese would understand 'xyz'"?
> >
> > That was to say you might not learn Chinese but also lost your
> > English, pretty much like the boy from Wei in CT's story.
>
> Ah. Silly, isn't it.
Yes, it is.
>
> > > >> Chris probably doesn't care by now.
> > > >
> > > >Wonder where is J now.
> > >
> > > Lemming checks headers.
> >
> > Lost in the cyberspace?
>
> Sometimes I change t'hems.
> Looks as if eye is still @home.
> Imagine t'hats!
Imagine it is.
>
> > > >> >You've dressed "aw" as butterfly,
> > > >>
> > > >> I did?
> > > >> You are sure of this?
> > > >
> > > >I was mistaken "aw" for "small tortoiseshell," nevertheless, your
> > > >"misaddress" stands,
> > >
> > > What did I misaddress?
> >
> > "butterfly wrote:
> > >jay wrote:
> > >> butterfly wrote:
> > >> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> >
> > Your pretension is pathetic.
>
> You're being silly.
You're being boring.
>
> The writer who uses the term
> has stated that it's in reference
> to a butterfly, fwiw.
So, confused follows confused?
>
> > > >> >and "< o>" as pete, iirc,
> > > >>
> > > >> That was a mistake.
> > > >> In the same post I used 'don'.
> > > >> The two are not the same.
> > > >> <o> ispears.
> > > >
> > > >whatever.
> > >
> > > It's your quibble.
> >
> > Your verbiage.
>
> Silly stuff
> and non-sensicles.
Boring stuff.
>
> > > >> >do you
> > > >> >really know who the "original poster" is?
> > > >>
> > > >> Chris, iirc.
> > > >
> > > >No longer push "original" back to shaman spells and the beginning of
> > > >the world?
> > >
> > > That's an option.
> > > It would be up to Chris to decide.
> >
> > Get stuck with Chris, eh?
>
> Keep refreshing your screen.
> Think: "topic, subject, thread."
Entangled thread?
>
> > > >> >"How does one decide?"
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"How can one be sure?"
> > > >> >
> > > >> >???
> > > >>
> > > >> That's the question;
> > > >
> > > >And the answer was given,
> > >
> > > And here we are.
> >
> > In your perpetuated motion of wiggle.
>
> You are the silly fisher-dude.
You are the boring wiggle-kat,
> With a can of paint, shiney toys,
> and other things you employ.
"in your perpetuated motion of wiggle."
>
> > > >> eye dew believes you've gotsit.
> > > >
> > > >surprised that you didn't get it;
> > >
> > > Didn't get "what"?
> >
> > The meaning of words.
>
> which Ones?
Those ones you have to play wordswords with.
yunlong
> > jay wrote:
> > > ichin wrote:
> > > >jay wrote:
> > > [ ... ichin wrote: ...]
> > >
> > > >The meaning of metaphorical terminates on physical phenomenon, and
> > > >metaphysical describes on properties beyond forms, which do you think
> > > >TTC describes?
> > >
> > > By your standards, metaphorical.
> >
> > Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
>
> In terms of TTC 1
> my tendency is to lean
> toward punctuating the phrases after "ming"
> and thus inflect without-naming and with-naming
> as being a possible interpretation of the passages.
It would work, and come out pretty much the same meaning in Chinese,
nevertheless, in that interpretation what is Wu is lost. To say you
cannot tell what Wu is.
>
> Language is metaphysical by nature.
Yup, but may not be in English, e.g. what physical "god" "meta" after?
> You assert that metaphysical describes properties beyond forms.
What subject does "metaphysics" study again?
> Tis a semantical quibble. Silly.
Yup, in your wordswords.
>
> Another way I address 'wu' and 'you'
> revolves around Nonbeing and Being.
> Another way is in terms of undifferentiated
> and differentiated forms of consciousness.
>
> Each of the three ways of interpreting
> can yield possible inspirations. When I asked
> one of my associates about "dao ke dao"
> he immediately recognized it as the Laozi
> and said it has to do with the idea
> that there is no absolute truth.
While not knowing the "absolute truth" is what the statement implies,
> He said dao, in this sense, can mean "truth"
> or "reason" and that it's all relative.
where when "all relative" fall short of the "absolute."
>
> > > Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> > > authority would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
> >
> > Whether Chris would accept you as any kind of
> > his spokesman would raise another, similar, quest'ion.
>
> Is th'air an echo in h'ears?
Yup, your double-hearings,
> Since I did not offer any truest translation
> there isn't really any authority to cite.
and your double talks,
> Since you think the quest is silly
> he won't be citing any translation you provide either.
since he's no longer bothered to respond your posts, what makes you
think that he would accept or interest in your suggestions?
> Since you think it's silly, probably you won't finish yours.
"Silly is when you don't know that you don't know."
>
> > > >> This might be slightely different
> > > >> from what rick has suggested.
> > > >
> > > >Nevertheless he did suggest that to get rid of the "western"--to you
> > > >it's the wordswords--bullshit.
> > >
> > > So, back to Chris' question;
> >
> > Only three posts, you're already experiencing persona split?
>
> If that is what you see
> then that is what you see.
When the phenomenon is verified, it is no longer "if."
>
> > The following question is definitely not Chris's,
> >
> > > based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> > > and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> > > which translation do you think, feel, or know
> > > is closest to the original text's meaning?
>
> It was based upon o's idea
> coupled with your thoughts.
Yup, that shows how you hide behind Chris's name.
>
> > For how to find a "largest domain" you need a quite bit of math
> > training, and I-Ching? Forget it.
>
> It was, as you say, a silly idea.
"Silly is when you don't know that you don't know."
>
> > To say your knowledge has too many holes and gaps to even begin to
> > comprehend the answer.
>
> Okay.
> A silly answer it would be, at best.
Yup, it would be, after it gets through all your those holes and gaps.
>
> > Yup, answer was given.
>
> So you have reiterated.
>
> > > > ... you seem keeping forgetting
> > > >you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
> > >
> > > I'm not forgetting anything
> > > but you are fond of projecting.
> > > The connection was with respect
> > > to the subject and topic, remember?
> >
> > Yup, your "path"="spiritual path" is really shrewd.
>
> If that's how you see it.
Shrewd it is.
>
> > > >Chris? I think he has moved on,
> > >
> > > Maybe you will answer his question.
> > > Perhaps you will offer, tho incomplete,
> > > http://www.taomartialarts.com/ttc/ttc_main.html
> > > as _the_ translation closest to the original, eh?
> >
> > Not really, the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to
> > the original is silly.
> >
> > To say you guys danced around a fire quite nicely.
>
> Some people dance
> in order to get to the end of a song
> or to find the shortest round across the floor.
Yup, round and around some goes.
>
> > > >> What did I misaddress?
> > > >
> > > >"butterfly wrote:
> > > >>jay wrote:
> > > >>> butterfly wrote:
> > > >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> > > >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> > > >
> > > >Your pretension is pathetic.
> > >
> > > Your ignorance is astounding.
> > > I did not misaddress anything.
> > > Figure it out.
> > > http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
> >
> > Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
> > a butterfly?
>
> Twas a small difference.
Not if you lost in drifting,
> Obviously, you were unable to tell in the first place
> and projected your own erroneous silly stuff
> as is so often the case.
no, I don't do trivial pursue.
>
> > :)
> > IS
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> ichin wrote:
> >> > don wrote:
> >> >> jay had written:
>
> >> >"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
> >> >original is silly."
> >>
> >> The point of there being no point
> >> is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
> >
> >The hidden caveat is, a wrong question leads to a wrong answer, a
> >wrong answer leads to a wrong action, and a wrong action achieves a
> >wrong result. It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the
> >wrong path you are on is because the wrong question you ask today.
> >
> >>
> >> >Hint:
> >> >"get the meaning of the words, and forget about words."--CT--
> >> >"in studying Tao, reduce the garbage/verbiage day by day, until
> >> >there's none."--TTC--
> >>
> >> Even tho the words vary
> >> and there is no "best" or "truest"
> >> or "deepest" or "largest" domain,
> >> the stink of such shit remains.
> >
> >To say those labels won't make a shield for you this time.
>
> Why do you suppose I am making a shield?
In denial that you don't really know, and to save your mutated ego's
face?
>
> >And any "best" "truest" translation that covers the "deepest" and
> >"largest" doamin must "cover"/equate/agree with above statements, as
> >they are valid ones of "all [en]counters."
>
> So, let me see if I get what you're saying.
> There can be more than one "best"
> and there can be more than one "truest"
No, that was saying that you don't need the "best" "truest"
translation to see/know what is said in the original,
> and it really isn't silly?
because when you do get the "true" meaning of the original, the "best"
"truest" translation or not is no longer a matter/issue.
To say your "let me see..." is quite silly.
>
> >> >> > We can begin, again,
> >> >> > if you wish, with "Tao."
> >> >> > Ought it be translated as "Way"
> >> >> > or "Path" or "Spoken" or "Described"
> >> >> > or "Walked" or "Trodden" or "Direction"
> >> >> > or "Doctrine" or "Teaching" or "Told"
> >> >> > or should it vary in the very first partial phrase
> >> >> > "dao ke dao" initially meaning one thing
> >> >> > and in the second instance meaning
> >> >> > some other thing?
> >> >
> >> >You missed "upside down."
> >>
> >> I've never heard of that connotation.
> >
> >Along with oh maybe other 35 Chinese characters that would pronounce
> >and spell as "tao/dao."
>
> Guess it would be silly
> to try and find any best or truest
> let alone the best or truest
> translation of the text.
Yes, you said it, but,
>
> Or, then again, perhaps not.
why "perhaps not" now? Still try to confuse yourself to confuse
others?
>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> >When I was in my teens, a few of my buddies would get together and
> >> >bullshit quite often. One of the guys would lose his argument, and to
> >> >save his face, he would continue arguing insensibly, and eventually he
> >> >would turn into a shameless denial. Then, we would grab his ankles and
> >> >turn him "upside down"--dao--and shake him a bit (sometimes, a lot),
> >> >which would usually "right" his sense again. Yup, that's "dao ke dao."
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> not this again.
> >> >
> >> >You can say that again.
> >>
> >> Tanks!
> >
> >Just pulling your legs, ;)
>
> naturally
and watch out those studs that grow out of the gnarly old tree.
>
> >> Now eye kin goes back
> >> and answer the rest of yer quest'ions.
> >
> >"right"side up?
>
> side waze,
> as is, unusally,
> ones of m'eye way
I see, the perpetuated wiggle.
>
> >:)
> >IS
yunlong
> thedreamo...@hotmail.com (yunlong) wrote in message news:<159b2de1.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > "{8-])))" <jay@home> wrote in message news:<asnea09landpugikr...@4ax.com>...
> > > ichin wrote:
> > > > don wrote:
> > > >> jay had written:
>
> > > >"the idea/question of finding "the" translation closest to the
> > > >original is silly."
> > >
> > > The point of there being no point
> > > is a very fun point to make, of'ten-k atimes.
> >
> > The hidden caveat is, a wrong question leads to a wrong answer, a
> > wrong answer leads to a wrong action, and a wrong action achieves a
> > wrong result. It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the
> > wrong path you are on is because the wrong question you ask today.
>
> wrong path?
Failing without fail.
>
> wrong question?
"Leads to a wrong answer."
>
> wrong answer?
"Leads to a wrong action."
>
> Wrong Action?
"Leads to a wrong result."
>
> Wrong Result?
Yup, that's when you want to be a zero and end up with a chatterbox.
>
> that samurai in you is speaking again.... your set of rules perhaps a
> great code for you but please don't even try to pass it off here as
> taoism, zen or any part of it... perhaps a perverted japanese form of
> zen bushido budhism? or were you just joking in the above post? :-)
> cause it was funny...
"It ain't funny when you realize 20 years later that the wrong path
you are on is because the wrong question you ask today."
:)
IS
{8-])))
> jay wrote:
>> I took the time to ask some of my associates
>> if they could understand it. And, well, they did.
>
>Really? What do they understand? The "path", or "Tao"?
They understood the saying.
>> The vast majority of them did.
>
>Like you did?
What are you trying to say?
>> Thus, your assertion was absolutely wrong.
>
>Hehehe...
Hahaha...
>Yup, "The 'some idea' you've shown that I have was to say that your
>idea don't go beyond those labels."
Such is your understanding.
>Yup, read you like an open book.
You see what you choose to see.
>> How silly then.
>
>That's okay.
Of course it is.
It's simply how you are.
>> ... the TTC can be interpreted in lots of waze.
>
>Oh yes, that's what makes it Xing-Er-Shang,
>
>> It can point to metaphysics and apply teh, metaphorically.
>
>Actually, it has to. Yin Yang He He--harmonized Yin and Yang--is what
>makes Tao Chang, the central theme of Chinese Taoism. And it is when
>the metaphorically doesn't touch the ground, the Xing-Er-Shang turns
>into a hot-air.
>
>> You may wish to fix the meaning. Such is simply how you are.
>
>You may deny that you try to fix the meaning, but don't know how.
An associate today
stated that the term, "dao" means theory.
Lots of connotations. You may have a favorite
theory of your own. Perhaps it is fixed in your
mind and you enjoy its application.
>> > > That, or any metaphysical way.
>> > > The concept revolves around metaphor
>> > > and what is beyond physics to measure.
>> >
>> > No,
>>
>> Yes.
>
>"Yes" about what?
Yes about no.
Physics cannot measure language
nor the what the meanings of "path" are.
For you it may mean only one thing.
Physics can measure such a thing.
Terms can have lots of meanings.
Once the meaning is conveyed
it doesn't matter which words were used.
Unless, for you, it does.
>> > any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is
>> > just hot air.
>>
>> In your paradigm.
>
>True enough.
Fixed, as is your way.
>> > A beaten "path" may not have anything "spiritual" about it.
>>
>> Such is the silly stuff you pursue.
>
>Not really, the "path" is your translation.
Not my translation.
Again, you project. Such is your way.
I simply offer a number of possibilities
and you take off in your own silly way.
You think you know what I am saying
but quickly forget the topic, the focus,
and the subject of the thread.
>> > > > Or you forgot how English works already?
>> > >
>> > > In English there are denotations and connotations.
>> >
>> > And you don't know that the "spiritual" part of "spiritual path" is
>> > from the "spiritual" and actually has nothing to do with "path"?
>>
>> If you parse it as such, then no.
>
>Yes, that's the Way of English.
That may be the way of your English.
Being unable to understand words
is often something on which you stumble.
You project as you will and paint stripes
as you see fit. It's okay. It's just how you are.
>> If you see it otherwise then it does.
>
>How do you see "otherwise," and how "many" "otherwise" you see in the
>word "path," and why?
To think you can separate spirit from path
is how you chopped the phrase. If you don't chop
then that is an otherwise. There may be more ways
to unchop or chop. Feel free to try
in order to count them all.
>> You are free to do as you please.
>
>Not really,
Too bad.
>> Silly you. Just how silly are you?
>
>see how you get stuck on the "silly" thing. Are you free?
Free to use the term "silly"
seeing as how it was your term.
To project being stuck
is simply another of your projections.
Are you stuck?
>> > > If there was one and only one right way to
>> > > translated the text, to be closest or truest to
>> > > the original intent, then there would not now be
>> > > such a great number of translations.
>> >
>> > Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
>> > be valid in all encounters.
>>
>> So, in your view,
>> there is a truest, most correct, way of translating.
>
>Yes, if your "truest" and "most correct" have meanings.
Which translation is the truest?
Since your "truest" and "most correct" have
meanings, which version is your "best" one?
>> And which translation did you say is the closest?
>
>I didn't say,
Go on ahead and say, feel free.
No. Wait. You aren't free.
Okay, never mind.
> nevertheless, you need to know "what" "the closest" mean
>first, and how do you measure it?
And you are not free to do that.
Such a pity.
>> > > How would you translate the term, "dao"?
>> >
>> > Upside down?
>>
>> eye likesit!
>
>Yup, but it's a translation of a wrong character.
So you are not to be trusted.
You are not free and not honest.
But you are rather silly.
>> > We all know what that sentence meant,
>>
>> Then you did understand it.
>> Why not just make up your mind
>> and keep from flip-flopping back and froth?
>
>Because your sentence fell short of what you tried to translate.
I didn't try to translate it.
It was one of many translations given.
You stated that no Chinese would understand it.
Several do. You then flipped into another mode.
Maybe you simply see your own stripes
and your own mutated ego here.
You know, the mirror thing.
>> > but you seem keeping forgetting
>> > you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
>>
>> What I was doing
>> was something other
>> than what you thought I was doing.
>
>Maybe,
Obviously.
>> You can connect them however you want to.
>
>yup, "pretend" you know long enough then it'll become all you know.
I never did pretend to know.
That's another of your many projections.
Apparently that is all you know.
How pretentious are you?
>> > > then it disproves your original assertion.
>> >
>> > No, then they may be just as dumb as you or as dishonest as you,
>> > there's no proof.
>>
>> The proof is
>> that they understood,
>
>No, you have to "prove" they understood first,
I don't have to do anything of the sort.
Maybe that's something you need to do.
They said they understood it.
Probably you are stuck on proving things.
>and given the "parsing"
>nature of English, don't think that they would agree with you.
They did agree with me.
>> as do you, if you'll be honest, for a change.
>
>To say you have no idea how to "prove" things.
To say I have no need for your proofs.
>> > > >> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Might as well forget about
>> > > >> any translation being close to original then.
>> > > >
>> > > >Why?
>> > >
>> > > Because it's a closed set.
>> >
>> > Not really, you do have a body that reflects the same senses as other
>> > non-English speakers' bodies do, don't you?
>>
>> Then your assertion is false.
>
>No, "closed set" is your conclusion.
>
>To say that you don't know what you don't know.
I'm sure that I don't know what I don't know.
I'm also sure that I do know what I don't know.
There are many connotations of words in English.
You can prove things as you wish. You could feel
free, but you say that you aren't free.
So maybe you can't feel free.
>> Silly, aren't you.
>
>Not really, "silly" is only a "tailgunner," a small hook that attached
>and trailing behind the cheap shining thing, to "see how you get stuck
>on the "silly" thing."
So long as you are stuck on your cheap shining
things, there will appear to you wiggly dangles.
Feel free to enjoy t'hems. Except you aren't free.
>> > Actually, newager is not the problem, as the world evolves, but the
>> > worn-out dogma is.
>>
>> Are you tired of your dogmatism?
>
>Dogmatism is when you quoting ancient teaching without understanding,
>and that's your specialty.
Curious definition of dogmatism.
Did you just invent that?
One must understand prior to quoting?
How strange.
But let me see if I understand what you're saying.
One ought not quote ancient teachings without
understanding. Are you very dogmatic about that?
>> > > >"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
>> > >
>> > > Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
>> >
>> > Yup, no wonder you seem to be so confused.
>>
>> That is simply you
>> who are perceiving your own lack
>> which results from dogmatism.
>
>Or simply you are so confused and have a persona split?
You can't see thru me?
Or just stuck on your cheap dangle.
Can't read like a book?
>> Maybe a being painter isn't your teh.
>> Instead of painting stripes, maybe you can
>> try something else to ensure a bozo is a bozo.
>
>You did make an accurate stripe, though crooked.
Really? When was t'hat?
>> > > >> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Q.E.D.
>> > > >
>> > > >Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
>> > >
>> > > Tao, in the second instance,
>> > > means decide or describe?
>> >
>> > Don't you have to "decide" before you "describe"?
>>
>> If you are dogmatic.
>
>No, any responsible person would ["decide" before "describe"].
Are you dogmatic about such a statement?
Are you saying this is true in all cases?
Often it is the other way around.
One describes possibilities
and then decides after that.
Responsible people often speculate
and ponder potentials, describing
with extensive detail, then they decide
and take responsibility.
All I did was offer several translations.
The rest is your fantasy, projections, cheap
dangle, and silly stuff you do to troll.
Fun stuff tho, however silly it may be.
>> You are, apparently, very silly.
>
>You are, apparently, very boring.
Cheap dangles.
>> Somebody asks a question.
>> You think I don't know how I think.
>> Do you really think that?
>
>No,
Then why did you say it?
>[I don't think you don't know how to think,]
Now you've changed it?
For somebody who wants to fix things
you sure do a lot of flipping and flopping.
Do you think I don't know how I myself think?
>only your shameless
>denials, for what falls short of what you think you know.
Knowledge claims are your department.
I know very little. Never claimed to know much.
>> > > >> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Thus, if so,
>> > > >> >> then any translation
>> > > >> >> which serves to evoke Unism
>> > > >> >> has done what the original intent was.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >Pretty much, yes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Then the spectrum has merged
>> > > >> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
>> > > >
>> > > >So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
>> > > >man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
>> > >
>> > > Actually, the old man said he didn't.
>> >
>> > To say you don't know how to read CT,
>>
>> He didn't say that?
>
>Yes, he did,
So he did.
>> Somebody translated that he did.
>
>nevertheless, you need to know how to read the metaphor, [what is
>followed?]
Nevertheless, he did say he didn't.
>> How would you translate that passage?
>>
>> Would your version be more true?
>> Now wouldn't that be silly?
>
>Yup,
Maybe even the truest?
>it's more silly to speculate it.
Can there be a most silly?
>> > > Perspectival relativism
>> > > was not on rick's list of original intent.
>> >
>> > You missed the Unism.
>>
>> Was that on his list?
>> Guess I must have missed it.
>> Don't recall it, at any rate.
>
>You do know what "Perspectival relativism" means, do you?
I know what it means to me.
Is this another of your cheap dangles?
>> Are you saying that your Unism
>> is the truest way to go in terms of translating?
>
>Yes, [if your "truest" has meaning.]
Let's assume that yours does.
Then what is the truest translation of the text?
Which translation meets your criteria?
>> Wouldn't that be silly?
>
>There's no words/"silly" in Unism.
Nothing to translate.
Thus, any text can be the truest.
Once the meaning it gotten
the words can be forgotten.
It makes no difference if the words are
"the path that can be walked" or
"the dao that can be described"
once one gets beyond the words.
Do you still cling to your differences
between the words that stick in your mind?
>> > > >> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Not to be confused
>> > > >> with 'dao ke dao' and,
>> > > >> following such a schema,
>> > > >> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
>> > > >
>> > > >Very shrewd, what does that get you?
>> > >
>> > > Possibly closer to the original intent.
>> >
>> > Yup, very shrewd, what do you mean by "closer," and how do you
>> > measure?
>>
>> Actually, I don't.
>
>"what does that get you?"
Nothing to get.
>> Which only goes to show
>> that such an interpretation
>> may not be the truest way to interpret.
>
>Especially when your words don't touch/terminate at the "physical"
>level.
Clinging to having words touch the physical
is something you will never escape. Such is the
nature of your dogmatism, however silly.
>> But even to presume
>> that the there is a truest way
>> would, by your saying, be silly.
>
>No,
I thought you said it was.
Maybe I was mistaken.
>[to produce a truest translation is not silly,]
Which translation is that?
Guess you're not free to say.
>to chase after one is [silly].
Isn't your version,
however incomplete,
the truest production so far?
If not, why not?
>> Another interpretation
>> is that there is no "chang ming"
>> and: "ming ke ming" is valid
>> but "fei chang ming" is the case.
>
>When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
Stuck on your own cheap dangle are you.
>> > > >What is the "Ming itself"?
>> > >
>> > > What does the I-Ching say?
>> >
>> > I-Ching did not use the term.
>>
>> How did such a term come to be
>> if the TTC emerged from the I-Ching?
>
>Because such a term is written in Chinese.
All terms written in Chinese
are derived from the I-Ching?
>> > > >> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
>> > > >> given in English, is the truest or closest
>> > > >> to the original intent of the text?
>> > > >
>> > > >Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
>> > > >of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
>> > > >someone to write/translate that way first.
>> > >
>> > > Which brings it back to Chris
>> >
>> > Chris? I think he has moved on,
>>
>> Let's not forget about <o>.
>
>Let's not forget about J.
Nor Ichin's cheap dangle.
>> > > and why I suggested he define
>> > > what he meant by his terminology.
>> >
>> > only you hide behind his name shadow,
>>
>> Such is your projection.
>> The idea of "topic" and "focus"
>> is something you easily lose
>> in your being silly
>> and upside-down.
>
>When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
Why cling to your cheap dangle?
Isn't that silly of you?
>So what's "wings" to do with "middle kingdom"?
I have no idea.
Just nibbling at something shiney.
>You're being boring.
Too bad you're stuck.
>> The writer who uses the term
>> has stated that it's in reference
>> to a butterfly, fwiw.
>
>So, confused follows confused?
Not at all.
You were simply confused.
You're confused about lots of stuff.
Maybe you know it, maybe not.
>Boring stuff.
Stuck on cheap dangle.
>Entangled thread?
Tao unties tangles.
>> You are the silly fisher-dude.
>
>You are the boring wiggle-kat,
Maybe try something
other than cheap dangle next time.
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> ichin wrote:
>> > Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
>>
>> In terms of TTC 1
>> my tendency is to lean
>> toward punctuating the phrases after "ming"
>> and thus inflect without-naming and with-naming
>> as being a possible interpretation of the passages.
>
>It would work, and come out pretty much the same meaning in Chinese,
>nevertheless, in that interpretation what is Wu is lost. To say you
>cannot tell what Wu is.
hmmm.
It would not stand alone in such a case.
The phrase would be "wu-ming"
as in, "dao chang wu ming."
>> Language is metaphysical by nature.
>
>Yup,
Okay.
> but may not be in English, e.g. what physical "god" "meta" after?
Please rephrase.
>> You assert that metaphysical describes properties beyond forms.
>
>What subject does "metaphysics" study again?
That which is beyond physics, typically.
>> Tis a semantical quibble. Silly.
>
>Yup, in your wordswords.
The study of metaphysics
is not necessarily the same
as using the term, "metaphysical."
Just as with "Wu"
words may mean little or nothing
without a context.
>> Another way I address 'wu' and 'you'
>> revolves around Nonbeing and Being.
>> Another way is in terms of undifferentiated
>> and differentiated forms of consciousness.
>>
>> Each of the three ways of interpreting
>> can yield possible inspirations. When I asked
>> one of my associates about "dao ke dao"
>> he immediately recognized it as the Laozi
>> and said it has to do with the idea
>> that there is no absolute truth.
>
>While not knowing the "absolute truth" is what the statement implies,
To you it may imply that.
>> He said dao, in this sense, can mean "truth"
>> or "reason" and that it's all relative.
>
>where when "all relative" fall short of the "absolute."
Such is your interpretation.
>> > > based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
>> > > and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
>> > > which translation do you think, feel, or know
>> > > is closest to the original text's meaning?
Are there any translations
that conform to your criteria?
>> > > >> What did I misaddress?
>> > > >
>> > > >"butterfly wrote:
>> > > >>jay wrote:
>> > > >>> butterfly wrote:
>> > > >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
>> > > >
>> > > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
>> > > >
>> > > >Your pretension is pathetic.
>> > >
>> > > Your ignorance is astounding.
>> > > I did not misaddress anything.
>> > > Figure it out.
>> > > http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
>> >
>> > Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
>> > a butterfly?
>>
>> Twas a small difference.
>
>Not if you lost in drifting,
Apparently you drifted
and were lost in your drifting.
>> Obviously, you were unable to tell in the first place
>> and projected your own erroneous silly stuff
>> as is so often the case.
>
>no, I don't do trivial pursue.
No, you simply project
your own silly stuff.
Probably it's a baggage thing
or maybe stuck on cheap and shiney.
>> > :)
>> > IS
{8-])))
>jay wrote:
>> ichin wrote:
>> >To say those labels won't make a shield for you this time.
>>
>> Why do you suppose I am making a shield?
>
>In denial that you don't really know,
>and to save your mutated ego's face?
Is that a question or a projection?
>> >And any "best" "truest" translation that covers the "deepest" and
>> >"largest" doamin must "cover"/equate/agree with above statements, as
>> >they are valid ones of "all [en]counters."
>>
>> So, let me see if I get what you're saying.
>> There can be more than one "best"
>> and there can be more than one "truest"
>
>No,
No?
I thought you just wrote, 'And any "best" ... '
>that was saying that you don't need the "best" "truest"
>translation to see/know what is said in the original,
No need to provide a translation then
any One sh'all dew. You've gone from "the"
to "any" in a swell foop.
>> and it really isn't silly?
>
>because when you do get the "true" meaning of the original, the "best"
>"truest" translation or not is no longer a matter/issue.
It's nice that Chris is free
and need not be burdened
with chasing after "truest"
or other such nonsense.
>To say your "let me see..." is quite silly.
Got any more cheap dangles?
>> Guess it would be silly
>> to try and find any best or truest
>> let alone the best or truest
>> translation of the text.
>
>Yes, you said it,
I thought you said it.
I simply repeated it.
>but,
but?
>> Or, then again, perhaps not.
>
>why "perhaps not" now?
Cuz you keep flip-flopping.
>Still try to confuse yourself to confuse others?
Maybe dangle is too cheap.
You get what you pay for
is a saying some say.
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> > jay wrote:
>
> >> I took the time to ask some of my associates
> >> if they could understand it. And, well, they did.
> >
> >Really? What do they understand? The "path", or "Tao"?
>
> They understood the saying.
"What" was the saying?
>
> >> The vast majority of them did.
> >
> >Like you did?
>
> What are you trying to say?
To say that I've heard too many people said they understood when they
didn't, only to save themselves from the embarrassment of not knowing.
>
> >> Thus, your assertion was absolutely wrong.
> >
> >Hehehe...
>
> Hahaha...
What are you embarrassed about?
>
> >Yup, "The 'some idea' you've shown that I have was to say that your
> >idea don't go beyond those labels."
>
> Such is your understanding.
True enough.
>
> >Yup, read you like an open book.
>
> You see what you choose to see.
Accurate enough.
>
> >> How silly then.
> >
> >That's okay.
>
> Of course it is.
> It's simply how you are.
Can't help those silly people who are blinded at the heart. That's why
"Sheng Ren Bu Ren," a sage is unkind.--TTC 5.
>
> >> ... the TTC can be interpreted in lots of waze.
> >
> >Oh yes, that's what makes it Xing-Er-Shang,
> >
> >> It can point to metaphysics and apply teh, metaphorically.
> >
> >Actually, it has to. Yin Yang He He--harmonized Yin and Yang--is what
> >makes Tao Chang, the central theme of Chinese Taoism. And it is when
> >the metaphorically doesn't touch the ground, the Xing-Er-Shang turns
> >into a hot-air.
> >
> >> You may wish to fix the meaning. Such is simply how you are.
> >
> >You may deny that you try to fix the meaning, but don't know how.
>
> An associate today
> stated that the term, "dao" means theory.
> Lots of connotations.
Yup, a lot of connotations exist, however, the tricky part is to pick
up the right one, at right time and right place;
> You may have a favorite theory of your own.
Is that how you form your Bozo Taoism?
> Perhaps it is fixed in your mind and you enjoy its application.
We did see you enjoyed it alright; wonder how the clown feels when the
show is over and the audience have left.
>
> >> > > That, or any metaphysical way.
> >> > > The concept revolves around metaphor
> >> > > and what is beyond physics to measure.
> >> >
> >> > No,
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >"Yes" about what?
>
> Yes about no.
So you agree with what I said?
> Physics cannot measure language
> nor the what the meanings of "path" are.
>
> For you it may mean only one thing.
> Physics can measure such a thing.
> Terms can have lots of meanings.
> Once the meaning is conveyed
> it doesn't matter which words were used.
The problem is with a term has "lots of meanings" at one time and one
place does not convey a meaning but a confused blot;
> Unless, for you, it does.
"any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is just
hot air."
>
> >> > any metaphor that doesn't touch the ground (beyond physics) is
> >> > just hot air.
> >>
> >> In your paradigm.
> >
> >True enough.
>
> Fixed, as is your way.
Yes, Tao Chang.
>
> >> > A beaten "path" may not have anything "spiritual" about it.
> >>
> >> Such is the silly stuff you pursue.
> >
> >Not really, the "path" is your translation.
>
> Not my translation.
> Again, you project. Such is your way.
Dare not to face you own writing again, I see, remember this?
"Be that as it may, apparently there is
such a use of 'path' in English,
e.g. spiritual path."
Is that how your understand English?
>
> I simply offer a number of possibilities
> and you take off in your own silly way.
Yup, that reflects how silly your "possibilities" argument is,
> You think you know what I am saying
> but quickly forget the topic, the focus,
> and the subject of the thread.
The subject of the thread is "translation," and you said you followed
the thread, but dare not to enter your "possibilities" as
"translation"? Or you didn't know the "path" is your translation?
When you dare not face yourself, you probably don't know what you are
doing neither, I recon.
>
> >> > > > Or you forgot how English works already?
> >> > >
> >> > > In English there are denotations and connotations.
> >> >
> >> > And you don't know that the "spiritual" part of "spiritual path" is
> >> > from the "spiritual" and actually has nothing to do with "path"?
> >>
> >> If you parse it as such, then no.
> >
> >Yes, that's the Way of English.
>
> That may be the way of your English.
Yup, I follow the standard English.
> Being unable to understand words
> is often something on which you stumble.
Yup, that sounds how your wordswords stumble.
> You project as you will and paint stripes
> as you see fit. It's okay. It's just how you are.
But you did agree that we painted the bozo accurately?
>
> >> If you see it otherwise then it does.
> >
> >How do you see "otherwise," and how "many" "otherwise" you see in the
> >word "path," and why?
>
> To think you can separate spirit from path
> is how you chopped the phrase. If you don't chop
> then that is an otherwise. There may be more ways
> to unchop or chop. Feel free to try
> in order to count them all.
No thanks, can see that just a blotch of blots already.
>
> >> You are free to do as you please.
> >
> >Not really,
>
> Too bad.
Not really, I got my things done.
>
> >> Silly you. Just how silly are you?
> >
> >see how you get stuck on the "silly" thing. Are you free?
>
> Free to use the term "silly"
> seeing as how it was your term.
>
> To project being stuck
> is simply another of your projections.
>
> Are you stuck?
Mmm... not sure, I got a kat on the line.
>
> >> > > If there was one and only one right way to
> >> > > translated the text, to be closest or truest to
> >> > > the original intent, then there would not now be
> >> > > such a great number of translations.
> >> >
> >> > Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
> >> > be valid in all encounters.
> >>
> >> So, in your view,
> >> there is a truest, most correct, way of translating.
> >
> >Yes, if your "truest" and "most correct" have meanings.
>
> Which translation is the truest?
> Since your "truest" and "most correct" have
> meanings, which version is your "best" one?
None, you do realize that "truest" and any other "-est" you try to
inject remain a "comparative terms," not "absolute" in English, right?
>
> >> And which translation did you say is the closest?
> >
> >I didn't say,
>
> Go on ahead and say, feel free.
I did say, but you didn't know how to parse,
"nevertheless, you need to know 'what' 'the closest' mean first, and
how do you measure it?"
> No. Wait. You aren't free.
At least I'm free enough to get my things done,
> Okay, never mind.
and play with a kat or two.
>
> > nevertheless, you need to know "what" "the closest" mean
> >first, and how do you measure it?
>
> And you are not free to do that.
Good measurement is never free, especially with those unmeasureable.
> Such a pity.
Pity is you don't even know that you didn't get the question right.
>
> >> > > How would you translate the term, "dao"?
> >> >
> >> > Upside down?
> >>
> >> eye likesit!
> >
> >Yup, but it's a translation of a wrong character.
>
> So you are not to be trusted.
I did tell you I was "pulling your legs," didn't I?
> You are not free and not honest.
> But you are rather silly.
How silly for you to think that.
>
> >> > We all know what that sentence meant,
> >>
> >> Then you did understand it.
> >> Why not just make up your mind
> >> and keep from flip-flopping back and froth?
> >
> >Because your sentence fell short of what you tried to translate.
>
> I didn't try to translate it.
> It was one of many translations given.
> You stated that no Chinese would understand it.
> Several do. You then flipped into another mode.
> Maybe you simply see your own stripes
> and your own mutated ego here.
Yup, in your wiggle, everything seems to be at wiggle as well,
> You know, the mirror thing.
but you don't see yourself in the mirror?
>
> >> > but you seem keeping forgetting
> >> > you were translating for "Tao Ke Tao," how do they connect?
> >>
> >> What I was doing
> >> was something other
> >> than what you thought I was doing.
> >
> >Maybe,
>
> Obviously.
So what were you doing? being a bozo?
>
> >> You can connect them however you want to.
> >
> >yup, "pretend" you know long enough then it'll become all you know.
>
> I never did pretend to know.
That's pretending.
> That's another of your many projections.
True enough.
> Apparently that is all you know.
Accurate enough.
> How pretentious are you?
The pretensions are yours.
>
> >> > > then it disproves your original assertion.
> >> >
> >> > No, then they may be just as dumb as you or as dishonest as you,
> >> > there's no proof.
> >>
> >> The proof is
> >> that they understood,
> >
> >No, you have to "prove" they understood first,
>
> I don't have to do anything of the sort.
Yup, guess that's why you cannot tell reality from fantasy.
> Maybe that's something you need to do.
> They said they understood it.
Who are they, and how (when) did that thing/event happen, in your
dream?
>
> Probably you are stuck on proving things.
That's only logical conclusion.
>
> >and given the "parsing"
> >nature of English, don't think that they would agree with you.
>
> They did agree with me.
Who are they, and how (when) did that thing/event happen, in your
dream?
>
> >> as do you, if you'll be honest, for a change.
> >
> >To say you have no idea how to "prove" things.
>
> To say I have no need for your proofs.
Guess you are free to be a bozo.
>
> >> > > >> >English meaning can only be defined by English words.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Might as well forget about
> >> > > >> any translation being close to original then.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Why?
> >> > >
> >> > > Because it's a closed set.
> >> >
> >> > Not really, you do have a body that reflects the same senses as other
> >> > non-English speakers' bodies do, don't you?
> >>
> >> Then your assertion is false.
> >
> >No, "closed set" is your conclusion.
> >
> >To say that you don't know what you don't know.
>
> I'm sure that I don't know what I don't know.
> I'm also sure that I do know what I don't know.
Are you sure?
> There are many connotations of words in English.
"Yup, a lot of connotations exist, however, the tricky part is to pick
up the right one, right time and right place;" do you know how to pick
one up?
> You can prove things as you wish. You could feel
> free, but you say that you aren't free.
Mmm... did I got a bite?
> So maybe you can't feel free.
Not the moment when a kat is on my line.
>
> >> Silly, aren't you.
> >
> >Not really, "silly" is only a "tailgunner," a small hook that attached
> >and trailing behind the cheap shining thing, to "see how you get stuck
> >on the "silly" thing."
>
> So long as you are stuck on your cheap shining
> things, there will appear to you wiggly dangles.
> Feel free to enjoy t'hems. Except you aren't free.
I did get a kat on my line.
>
> >> > Actually, newager is not the problem, as the world evolves, but the
> >> > worn-out dogma is.
> >>
> >> Are you tired of your dogmatism?
> >
> >Dogmatism is when you quoting ancient teaching without understanding,
> >and that's your specialty.
>
> Curious definition of dogmatism.
> Did you just invent that?
No, it's an observed phenomenon.
>
> One must understand prior to quoting?
Any responsible person would, as well as those who weigh their words,
> How strange.
unless, of course, you just want to be a verbiage.
>
> But let me see if I understand what you're saying.
> One ought not quote ancient teachings without
> understanding.
If the ancient teaching is what you want to show, yes.
> Are you very dogmatic about that?
What's the point quoting without understanding, to say why even quote?
To show you know something?
>
> >> > > >"Your" English does have meanings, doesn't it?
> >> > >
> >> > > Mine, unusually, has m'ore than One.
> >> >
> >> > Yup, no wonder you seem to be so confused.
> >>
> >> That is simply you
> >> who are perceiving your own lack
> >> which results from dogmatism.
> >
> >Or simply you are so confused and have a persona split?
>
> You can't see thru me?
> Or just stuck on your cheap dangle.
> Can't read like a book?
Huh? In denial?
>
> >> Maybe a being painter isn't your teh.
> >> Instead of painting stripes, maybe you can
> >> try something else to ensure a bozo is a bozo.
> >
> >You did make an accurate stripe, though crooked.
>
> Really? When was t'hat?
When you composed a question with o's idea and my thoughts and
addressed it as Chris's question.
Short memory eh?
>
> >> > > >> >If you have to decide it ain't true. (per Tao Ke Tao.)
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Q.E.D.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Tao Ke Tao/deside Fei Chang Tao?
> >> > >
> >> > > Tao, in the second instance,
> >> > > means decide or describe?
> >> >
> >> > Don't you have to "decide" before you "describe"?
> >>
> >> If you are dogmatic.
> >
> >No, any responsible person would ["decide" before "describe"].
>
> Are you dogmatic about such a statement?
> Are you saying this is true in all cases?
"All cases" is your dogmatic term, as "all" is impossible to reach, so
it seems that you got it right; yup, dogmatic.
>
> Often it is the other way around.
> One describes possibilities
> and then decides after that.
Each possibility leads to a different path, and each path produces to
a different result. There are infinite possibilities, so there may be
infinite results.
>
> Responsible people often speculate
> and ponder potentials, describing
> with extensive detail, then they decide
> and take responsibility.
>
> All I did was offer several translations.
> The rest is your fantasy, projections, cheap
> dangle, and silly stuff you do to troll.
As trolled by CT,
"We human have a limited life, and the possibilities of mind are
infinite, using limited life to chase infinite possibilities is in
danger of exhausting. Those who already know this but continue to
pursue their ways expose them more into the predicament."--CT 3--
> Fun stuff tho, however silly it may be.
And you said you study CT? yup, how silly it is.
>
> >> You are, apparently, very silly.
> >
> >You are, apparently, very boring.
>
> Cheap dangles.
With a kat dangles on it.
>
> >> Somebody asks a question.
> >> You think I don't know how I think.
> >> Do you really think that?
> >
> >No,
>
> Then why did you say it?
I didn't say,
>
> >[I don't think you don't know how to think,]
>
> Now you've changed it?
> For somebody who wants to fix things
> you sure do a lot of flipping and flopping.
more like you don't know how to parse a standard English statement.
> Do you think I don't know how I myself think?
Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but it doesn't show on the way you
parse standard English.
>
> >only your shameless
> >denials, for what falls short of what you think you know.
>
> Knowledge claims are your department.
> I know very little. Never claimed to know much.
To say you don't know that you have made a claim.
>
> >> > > >> >> >In the realm of Unism, there are no other answers.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Thus, if so,
> >> > > >> >> then any translation
> >> > > >> >> which serves to evoke Unism
> >> > > >> >> has done what the original intent was.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >Pretty much, yes.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Then the spectrum has merged
> >> > > >> from ultra-violet to infra-red rain-bowish.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >So you don't know why CT said that wheelwright, bugcatcher, or the old
> >> > > >man from Lu Liang Falls had Tao?
> >> > >
> >> > > Actually, the old man said he didn't.
> >> >
> >> > To say you don't know how to read CT,
> >>
> >> He didn't say that?
> >
> >Yes, he did,
>
> So he did.
What about?
>
> >> Somebody translated that he did.
> >
> >nevertheless, you need to know how to read the metaphor, [what is
> >followed?]
>
> Nevertheless, he did say he didn't.
"nevertheless, you need to know how to read the metaphor, [what is
followed?]
>
> >> How would you translate that passage?
> >>
> >> Would your version be more true?
> >> Now wouldn't that be silly?
> >
> >Yup,
>
> Maybe even the truest?
Maybe.
>
> >it's more silly to speculate it.
>
> Can there be a most silly?
Yes, when one gets stuck on "silly."
>
> >> > > Perspectival relativism
> >> > > was not on rick's list of original intent.
> >> >
> >> > You missed the Unism.
> >>
> >> Was that on his list?
> >> Guess I must have missed it.
> >> Don't recall it, at any rate.
> >
> >You do know what "Perspectival relativism" means, do you?
>
> I know what it means to me.
> Is this another of your cheap dangles?
It depends on how you "know" the term "You missed the Unism."
>
> >> Are you saying that your Unism
> >> is the truest way to go in terms of translating?
> >
> >Yes, [if your "truest" has meaning.]
>
> Let's assume that yours does.
> Then what is the truest translation of the text?
> Which translation meets your criteria?
"Simple, as Tao encompasses all, so the right way of translation must
be valid in all encounters."
>
> >> Wouldn't that be silly?
> >
> >There's no words/"silly" in Unism.
>
> Nothing to translate.
The physical body knows it got its butt kicked, nothing to translate.
> Thus, any text can be the truest.
None sense.
> Once the meaning it gotten
> the words can be forgotten.
You have to get the meaning first, for "once" sake.
> It makes no difference if the words are
> "the path that can be walked" or
> "the dao that can be described"
They are significant difference meaning there
> once one gets beyond the words.
to determine whether or not one "can" get beyond that "once,"
>
> Do you still cling to your differences
> between the words that stick in your mind?
Do you understand the difference there?
>
> >> > > >> >Chang Tao is/means Tao itself.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Not to be confused
> >> > > >> with 'dao ke dao' and,
> >> > > >> following such a schema,
> >> > > >> Chang Ming is/means Ming itself.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Very shrewd, what does that get you?
> >> > >
> >> > > Possibly closer to the original intent.
> >> >
> >> > Yup, very shrewd, what do you mean by "closer," and how do you
> >> > measure?
> >>
> >> Actually, I don't.
> >
> >"what does that get you?"
>
> Nothing to get.
"Possibly closer to the original intent" was not you original thinking
on what you were getting?
>
> >> Which only goes to show
> >> that such an interpretation
> >> may not be the truest way to interpret.
> >
> >Especially when your words don't touch/terminate at the "physical"
> >level.
>
> Clinging to having words touch the physical
> is something you will never escape.
Never did intend to escape it, the Way of physical is what/why/how Tao
is,
> Such is the
> nature of your dogmatism, however silly.
and we see how your dogmatism is developed, when your wordswords don't
touch the physical reality.
>
> >> But even to presume
> >> that the there is a truest way
> >> would, by your saying, be silly.
> >
> >No,
>
> I thought you said it was.
> Maybe I was mistaken.
>
> >[to produce a truest translation is not silly,]
>
> Which translation is that?
Maybe in a couple of years,
> Guess you're not free to say.
I don't say the things that I don't know or have no experience of it.
>
> >to chase after one is [silly].
>
> Isn't your version,
> however incomplete,
> the truest production so far?
No, nevertheless, it is true enough.
>
> If not, why not?
"Truest" is unknown quality when/while "true" is not known. What do
you mean by "truest" again?
>
> >> Another interpretation
> >> is that there is no "chang ming"
> >> and: "ming ke ming" is valid
> >> but "fei chang ming" is the case.
> >
> >When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
>
> Stuck on your own cheap dangle are you.
To say I got a kat hanging on that cheap dangle.
>
> >> > > >What is the "Ming itself"?
> >> > >
> >> > > What does the I-Ching say?
> >> >
> >> > I-Ching did not use the term.
> >>
> >> How did such a term come to be
> >> if the TTC emerged from the I-Ching?
> >
> >Because such a term is written in Chinese.
>
> All terms written in Chinese
> are derived from the I-Ching?
How do you get to this conclusion?
>
> >> > > >> But how to be sure that such an interpretation,
> >> > > >> given in English, is the truest or closest
> >> > > >> to the original intent of the text?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Get rid of your wordswords, and find the "true" meaning of every one
> >> > > >of "your" English words, then you may. Of course, you have to find
> >> > > >someone to write/translate that way first.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which brings it back to Chris
> >> >
> >> > Chris? I think he has moved on,
> >>
> >> Let's not forget about <o>.
> >
> >Let's not forget about J.
>
> Nor Ichin's cheap dangle.
How could that be, unless you don't know you are dangling on it.
>
> >> > > and why I suggested he define
> >> > > what he meant by his terminology.
> >> >
> >> > only you hide behind his name shadow,
> >>
> >> Such is your projection.
> >> The idea of "topic" and "focus"
> >> is something you easily lose
> >> in your being silly
> >> and upside-down.
> >
> >When you're trapped in your own words, there's no way out.
>
> Why cling to your cheap dangle?
The Tao of efficiency is to use minimum resource to achieve the
maximum result. The cheap shining things get results.
> Isn't that silly of you?
Not really, see what I got.
>
> >So what's "wings" to do with "middle kingdom"?
>
> I have no idea.
Figured.
> Just nibbling at something shiney.
>
> >You're being boring.
>
> Too bad you're stuck.
A bad fishing day is still a good day?
>
> >> The writer who uses the term
> >> has stated that it's in reference
> >> to a butterfly, fwiw.
> >
> >So, confused follows confused?
>
> Not at all.
> You were simply confused.
> You're confused about lots of stuff.
> Maybe you know it, maybe not.
No, I don't confuse smalltortoiseshell for butterfly.
>
> >Boring stuff.
>
> Stuck on cheap dangle.
Yup, with a kat dangling on it.
>
> >Entangled thread?
>
> Tao unties tangles.
That's to say how far opposite you are from Tao.
>
> >> You are the silly fisher-dude.
> >
> >You are the boring wiggle-kat,
>
> Maybe try something
> other than cheap dangle next time.
You mean the ones with substance and a lot interesting features? No,
it would be too sophisticated a taste for a kat; cheap shining thing
works better on cheap fish.
:)
IS
yunlong
> ichin wrote:
> >jay wrote:
> >> ichin wrote:
>
> >> > Really? How do you address "Wu" and "You"?
> >>
> >> In terms of TTC 1
> >> my tendency is to lean
> >> toward punctuating the phrases after "ming"
> >> and thus inflect without-naming and with-naming
> >> as being a possible interpretation of the passages.
> >
> >It would work, and come out pretty much the same meaning in Chinese,
> >nevertheless, in that interpretation what is Wu is lost. To say you
> >cannot tell what Wu is.
>
> hmmm.
> It would not stand alone in such a case.
Actually, it stands very solid alone. Both Wu and You at the beginning
of TTC are terms of Xing-Er-Shang, i.e. they contain the "principal
principles" that describe and depict how the becoming--being or
nonbeing--can be.
> The phrase would be "wu-ming"
The classic interpretation of Wu and You also sported a property of
nonrestriction for Wu, and restriction for You; you may have to take
the "nonrestriction" and "restriction" to the broadest interpretation.
As Tao cannot be "restricted," it cannot have a name, so "no name" is
given to describe Tao, not a name given to Tao.
> as in, "dao chang wu ming."
"Dao Chang Wu Ming" is not saying the Tao has no name but because Tao
cannot be restricted in any particular name, so the name [for Tao] is
not determined/fixed, hence no name. But what follows is how LZ used
Pu to describe the properties/characteristics of Tao.
>
> >> Language is metaphysical by nature.
> >
> >Yup,
>
> Okay.
>
> > but may not be in English, e.g. what physical "god" "meta" after?
>
> Please rephrase.
You were saying "Language is metaphysical by nature," and I was asking
what physical nature the word "god" got/"'meta' after" its meaning
from.
>
> >> You assert that metaphysical describes properties beyond forms.
> >
> >What subject does "metaphysics" study again?
>
> That which is beyond physics, typically.
And you quibble on my interpretation?
"You assert that metaphysical describes properties 'beyond' forms."
Quibble it is; yes, silly.
>
> >> Tis a semantical quibble. Silly.
> >
> >Yup, in your wordswords.
>
> The study of metaphysics
> is not necessarily the same
> as using the term, "metaphysical."
No, they are not the same,
>
> Just as with "Wu"
> words may mean little or nothing
> without a context.
the difference is Xing-Er-Shang and Xing-Er-Xia.
>
> >> Another way I address 'wu' and 'you'
> >> revolves around Nonbeing and Being.
> >> Another way is in terms of undifferentiated
> >> and differentiated forms of consciousness.
> >>
> >> Each of the three ways of interpreting
> >> can yield possible inspirations. When I asked
> >> one of my associates about "dao ke dao"
> >> he immediately recognized it as the Laozi
> >> and said it has to do with the idea
> >> that there is no absolute truth.
> >
> >While not knowing the "absolute truth" is what the statement implies,
>
> To you it may imply that.
Yes, I have proved it.
>
> >> He said dao, in this sense, can mean "truth"
> >> or "reason" and that it's all relative.
> >
> >where when "all relative" fall short of the "absolute."
>
> Such is your interpretation.
Yes, so your understanding is short.
>
> >> > > based upon your paradigm of, "largest domain"
> >> > > and 'having something to do with the I-Ching',
> >> > > which translation do you think, feel, or know
> >> > > is closest to the original text's meaning?
>
> Are there any translations
> that conform to your criteria?
Not I have run across.
>
> >> > > >> What did I misaddress?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"butterfly wrote:
> >> > > >>jay wrote:
> >> > > >>> butterfly wrote:
> >> > > >>> >a wayfarer wrote:"
> >> > > >
> >> > > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbutterfly%2Bgroup:alt.philosophy.taoism%2Bauthor:%257B8-%255D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dkaff90tksstitppcl4ft4ffc5qnuqr2gm5%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D1
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Your pretension is pathetic.
> >> > >
> >> > > Your ignorance is astounding.
> >> > > I did not misaddress anything.
> >> > > Figure it out.
> >> > > http://www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/T846.HTM
> >> >
> >> > Fancy surfing, so, you are saying you cannot tell a tortoiseshell from
> >> > a butterfly?
> >>
> >> Twas a small difference.
> >
> >Not if you lost in drifting,
>
> Apparently you drifted
> and were lost in your drifting.
Interesting in how you got that "apparently."
>
> >> Obviously, you were unable to tell in the first place
> >> and projected your own erroneous silly stuff
> >> as is so often the case.
> >
> >no, I don't do trivial pursue.
>
> No, you simply project
> your own silly stuff.
Silly it is,
>
> Probably it's a baggage thing
> or maybe stuck on cheap and shiney.
when you stuck on that cheap shining "silly" thing.
:)
IS