majc

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    82

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by majc

  1. Posted · Edited by majc

    does anyone have the translation for business leaders?

    Sup T bag. For one that works with an exec's point of view, try this:

     

    Exceptional leadership is mostly unnoticed.

     

    The next best leadership is followed and praised.

    The next best leadership is feared.

    The worst leadership is hated.

     

    With uncertainties involved,

    there's always doubt.

     

    The Master understands this well.

     

    He succeeds when people say,

    "We did it on our own."

     

    http://www.openwisdom.org/tao-te-ching/#17

  3. Posted · Edited by majc

    Some thoughts on Chapter 15:

     

    1) The first line has always bothered me a little because of the reference to the sages of antiquity and the fact they are described in the past tense. Mercia Eliade, an excellent scholar, coined a phrase for this perspective: "nostalgia for paradice," a sort of romantic illusion that there was a legendary time when people were wiser and magic was afoot.

    Yeah I agree this is pretty key. I changed exactly this for the same reason a couple of weeks ago at some point during another stupid argument with TianShi about governance. ^_^

     

    If you take a literal, broken-english reading of the first line to be "In doing study of skillful [men] of history..." the rest follows much better from there. And then, un-breaking the English:

     

    ---------

     

    We study skillful men of old.

     

    But their subtlety defies explanation.

    Their clarity can't be described.

     

    All we have left to speak of is how they appear...

     

    So aware, as if crossing a frozen river.

    So enthused, as if enveloped in risk.

    So attentive, as if a humble guest.

     

    So effortless, like ice becoming water.

    So genuine, like uncarved wood.

    So open, like a great valley.

    So complete, everything interwoven.

     

    Who can allow their own waters to clear?

    Who can not force and let action arise by itself?

     

    Those who are walking this path

    aren't trying to attain it.

     

    So far as there is no sense of arrival,

    they keep going.

     

    http://www.openwisdom.org/tao-te-ching/#15

    • Like 2

  5. Posted · Edited by majc

    Wow Taomeow... That's a cool post. :)

     

    Does this reader, this person, need to know who Father William is so as to understand what the poem is about? Nope... he needs to experience what the native reader experiences when reading this line. The native reader immediately recognizes the style and knows what to expect.

    Yeah. I think evoke is the key (English) word here, right? The wording chosen by an author evokes a particular (re)cognition in the reader. Depending on the cultural/historical/geographical/linguistic background of the reader, the same string of symbols will evoke different associations.

     

    An author can't account for this huge variety in reader backgrounds. So, in being universal, it's up to him or her to use examples which are unmistakably basic to all readers - regardless of what language they have primarily learned to speak - and to make the context of what they're expressing so simple that it crosses all these same boundaries too.

     

    This is what I think (the) Laozi achieved using the tools/language available at the time. The TTC happens to have been expressed in Chinese characters 2,500 years ago. But China, Chinese characters, and 2,500 years ago are all arbitrary factors to that-which-inspires-such-expression. I see no reason why the same inspiration couldn't strike someone in pretty much any domain.

     

     

    What I'm driving at is,

     

    Laozi himself couldn't translate his work into English without doing stuff like that, without doing it this way! Doing it this way is the single most difficult thing in the world for a writing genius to do.

    Another good point. He probably wouldn't today though if he was born here - by now he probably would've been diagnosed with ADHD, dyselecxtria, and some sort of motivational disorder, and be regularly ingesting some bizarre cocktail of medication instead.

     

    I guess my point is that if the starting point is an entirely different cultural and technological background, the same considerations might be more effectively evoked by the use of an entirely different cultural and technological medium of expression...

     

    Perhaps an internet! ^_^

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    Now, I will suggest that there is no difference between the flow of Tao and the flow of a lion.

     

    The 'higher' animals though, like many ape and ocean mammals, oftentimes take courses that are agains our natural flow ...

    Nah, I think we're natural too. ^_^

     

     

    ... thereby making life a little harded for us.

    And easier.

  9. Posted

    majc u seem to start celebrating early:))Merry Xmas!

    Thanks. Same to you.

     

     

    i expressly disagree with xHSG ...

    So do I.

     

     

    ... so no i dont make the same point.

     

    he says DDJ is about following either Dao or ziran.

     

    i say it aint so. its neither and there is no following in DDJ message.

     

    so i make a different point.

    Well you're going a different way with it, yeah. But it's not wrong to say water 'follows' a course... it does.

     

    It doesn't take aim at a destination, it doesn't follow the route which it believes is going to require the least effort, it doesn't follow the most nourishing path, it doesn't follow its heart, it doesn't think about what other water that came before it did and decide its route based on that analysis. Water follows no thing.

     

    That's what needed to be said. But instead, you wanted to use words which effect the idea that you, TianShi the Authoritative, possess a profound, deep and enigmatic understanding of ziran which I, xHSG and "other commoners" as you put it don't. I don't doubt that you possess some understanding of ziran, but (yet again) the authoritarian airy bullshit which you attach to everything is unnecessary.

  10. Posted · Edited by majc

    The divergence here drives to a common debate over whether the ziran of things means to follow their own "nature" or to follow the Dao.

    What's the difference? ^_^

     

     

     

    edit: I should've read TianShi's post. He makes the same point with more words:

     

    This is a false dichotomy since it is based on a false assumption that "following" is good for some reason. I do not intend to talk in detail about this issue since it is outside of common frame of reference, but for the record point out that the message of DDJ is directly opposite to following.

    edit again: Agreed. Except you make it sound complicated. There's nothing profound here... except to say that 'following' automatically implies some kind of separation between you and that-which-is-followed.

     

    And like you said, that is precisely the misperception which the TTC addresses.

  11. Posted

    Jesus' 2010th birthday party is getting in the way a bit at the moment. I'll be back though.

     

    Short version: There's more to life than government. An exclusively government-centric interpretation of every possible aspect of everything isn't wrong. If power and control are the constructs by which you understand yourself and make sense of the world, fantastic. Go for it.

     

    TianShi, it sounds like you in particular have given this a lot of thought. I enjoy reading your versions of every chapter, and I maintain that you are constricting the significance of Lao Tzu's words.

     

    Happy Christmas everyone. ^_^

  12. Posted · Edited by majc

    Ha, well I learned something from this thread. I learned that early friday evening was probably not the best time for good translateyness.

     

    Is it not when self is lost that he's fulfilled?

     

    edit: oh and Rene, you can take any liberties you want. It's all good. ^_^

  13. Posted · Edited by majc

    The infinite skies, and our ancient ground...

    How are they so longstanding?

     

    They don't exist just by themselves.

    That's how their growth can be sustained.

     

    Thus...

    The Master leaves himself behind,

    and his person comes forth.

    Forgets himself,

    and his nature unfolds.

     

    Is it not when self is lost that he's fulfilled?

  18. Posted

    Hi:)yes, may be we can put it that way as a shorthand. but if we rephrase what the passage really says it woud sound like this:"Heaven and Earth are long living, its a fact. Why? Because there is something that sustains them from within, from another dimension. Now, the saints (the former emperors like Huang, Yu, Shun) were also long living. Why? Because within their bodies of flesh there was an energy body that sustained them from within.What can we learn from this two facts? That if want to live long we need to imitate this and develop energy bodies."

    Oh god... pun intended.

     

    Dear mods,

     

    as long as I make it clear that I'm talking about the twisting of characters in order to fit with what he has decided they should mean before he starts out, is it ok if I call TianShi a ginormous bender?

     

    Thanks,

     

    majc

  19. Posted · Edited by majc

    The word 'aspect' was horrible. Don't know why I left it in there... couldn't think of a good way to express it. :glare: This feels much less unfinished:

     

    That which is receiving doesn't end.

    This is the feminine element.

     

    The feminine element

    is key in all things

     

    On and on, opening up,

    without strain.

  21. Posted · Edited by majc

    No further... except to respond to dawei. :lol:

     

    I prefer to keep parallel where Lao Zi is, but once in a rare moment I find the context calls for dual meaning.

    Me too. But I don't see a need for dual meaning! ^_^

     

    It seems pretty damn obvious that the bit which is changing in the parallel comparison is not 仁. What changes - i.e. what is being compared - is {Nature} / {the 10,000 things} and {wise man} / {100 "families"}. The relationship between these two pairs of things is being compared in parallel - both are said to be non-REN.

     

    I'm suggesting that this makes sense if REN is rendered into English as precisely what the character looks like - a human picking (or even just viewing) one over another (one). A man choosing between two. So non-REN = non-preferring. Nature doesn't contrast different scenarios and imagine that one is better and therefore "pick" that one as its course of action. Division of reality into good and bad events and outcomes does not happen. Nature is entirely devoid of this kind of cognitive activity.

     

    ... and so is the wise man when it comes to the 100 "families".

     

    I am suggesting a deviation from the literal here: from "families" to distinctions/delineations. Note: families are both delineations (i.e. ancestral/family lines) and distinctions (i.e. the Smith family) so this is not a massive stretch.

     

     

    Where does "ruler" come from? Where 'Sheng Ren' exists (Sage) is understood by some as "Sage-Ruler". Since in ancient china one did NOT write explicitly against the ruler for death was a ready response, there was some innuendo approaches used.

    Well yeah, I know we can search out and find a reason why. But that's working backwards. That's working from an assumption: (The TTC is about govt., therefore it must mean 'ruler'), to a historical explanation for why that's true (because you were only allowed to write nice things about the ruler).

     

    This way of reasoning works like horoscopes. It's way too open to false positives.

     

    And on a side note, would someone wise enough to write the TTC really fear an emperor? Or even care about dying that much? (Especially if the world was as terrible as it's being described... frankly, it almost sounds like death would be welcome.)

     

     

    Wei is action, as you know. But this is often better defined by the action in context. If the action is one of "use", then I am all for saying "use". Not that I agree or not here, just a general principle I apply.

    I take wei as action (noun) too, i.e. activity.

     

     

    Can you provide a link for 仁 as "prefer"?

    Nope.

     

     

    The difficulty for me is not seeing this in reproach of Confucian ideas; 仁 is the KERNEL (seems a self-imposed pun) of the Confucian virtues; This is the mother of all virtues. SO it would be quite playful to use the word "Kernel", IMO.

    It would be much more playful to completely demystify it and turn it into something so normal, so literal and so plain as "preferring one thing over another".

     

     

    ^^^ This would be a direct opposition to Confucius core virtue, 仁.

    Yes it would. ^_^

     

     

    I see the personally application as not focusing on the mouth (many words) but the inside (stomach of empty space); ergo, Dao Yin practice (or Qigong in modern day). I think a sage of old would know this.

    "Guarding the center" is suggestive imagery, for sure. ;)

  23. Posted

    u just mentioned Line 1. Tao that cant be told...again that is not what is in the original. just sayin':))

    Obviously not. I know that. It's a convenient English rendering, and you know that too... Clearly you're set on just finding more and more ways to stall and appeal to the gallery in order to make it seem like you have some sort of profound understanding - instead of simply being direct and discussing it.

     

    But if you prefer: 道 A Tao 可 which can be/has been 道 [condensed into some structured abstraction/conceptual form and pointed to as "Tao"] 非 is not 常 [THE] 道 Tao. (Which simplifies into the much more readable: The Tao that can be told is not the Tao.)

     

    So anyway... you're defending this Buddhist "correct" way of "Doing Daoism" link you pointed to, yeah...? You stand by it? :blink:

  25. Posted · Edited by majc

    Ok, as a disclaimer: this is the chapter which I am least happy with my understanding of. Obviously I know what I mean by it, but I haven't found a translator who has produced anything close, or who's version makes sense in an easy-to-relate-to-reality way - which is what I consider important. So I've gone almost completely my own way with it... (Any sort of feedback therefore very much appreciated!) :blink:

     

    Following on kind of neatly from Chapter 5's bit on space and the futility of words...

     

    That which is receiving doesn't end.

    This is the feminine element.

     

    The feminine element

    is key in all things.

     

    On and on, opening up,

    without strain.

     

    How could you wrap your head around (in other words be able to put words on) the endless "feminine element", receiving aspect, [space]? It just goes on and on, effortlessly opening up, however far you try to pursue it.