2/ The Western left/right love to conflate these...
The far left treat China as their holy grail of leftism, while the Breitbart goons decry "leftist China."
But China is NOT the West, and does not map to Western thought (ideologies).
3/ Conservatism, pragmatism, and a deep grounding in reality is foundational to the Chinese thought lineage beginning w/ the Dao De Jing. It then becomes hyper-pragmatic, hundreds of years later, with Han Fei's Legalism.
This contrasts starkly with idealistic Western leftism...
4/ Ex 1: Reality-based.
The Dao De Jing established the most fundamental; reality exists (nature), and we are inseparable from that reality. CPC is realistic.
But Western leftism (with postmodernism) has gone so far as to say reality can not be objectively known. Opposites!
5/ Ex2: Conservative (cautious).
The sage moves forward cautiously, testing each step, as if crossing a frozen river (DDJ). You can see this is in the CPC's operations.
But Western progressivists charge forward blindly without thinking or testing. And fail, and over over again.
6/ Ex3: Non-idealistic.
From Legalism thousands of years ago, to Mao and Deng, China is more about pragmatism. Results instruct us on how things work, not ideology.
But Western Marxists/PoMo are all about their precious ideology. They sacrifice people, and results, for ideas.
7/ Ex4: Values.
East Asia has conservative values. Korea and Japan for sure. China is a big place, Shanghai is more liberal, but overall values community, family, elders, respect.
But Western lefties are individualists, have poor family relations, and zero respect for anyone.
8/ In conclusion, Western thought simply does not map to East Asia. The moment China took Marxism and capitalism, and started tinkering with them, they started becoming CHINESE.
To understand, we have to think about China thru Chinese thought, not Western thought. 💡 (8/8)
Update: Tom making a similar point...
“...the bizarre appropriation of communist states as a vehicle for identity politics and social justice goals in Western countries.”
These weird Western ideologies/cults belong in the declining West, they have nothing to do with China.
An introduction to the Analects, complete with advice on a reading method, by Chengzi. Honestly, I find this practical advice more helpful than the intros in the English versions by academics. solzi.net/analects/chapt…
People nowadays do not know how to read properly. For instance, when reading the Analects, if one remains the same kind of person before and after reading, it is as if they have never read it. – Chengzi
今人不會讀書。如讀論語,未讀時是此等人,讀了後又只是此等人,便是不曾讀。
Just reading the Analects and Mencius is not enough, students must savor them. If you only understand the words, the deeper meaning will be insufficient. Reading the Analects and Mencius without understanding is like the saying, “Even if much is done, what's the use?” – Chengzi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Do we even destroy our human relationships, and cannibalize our nation state, all for the sake of individualistic profit?
Or, do we strengthen human relationships, with applied moral philosophy, and then profit as a whole civilization down the road?
Two ways, 二道! /2
Yang Zhu was essentially Milton Friedman “the only moral responsibility (of business) is profits for ourselves.” But how did that work? That philosophy of selfishness was that of the Warring States, which was a time of war and chaos lasting hundreds of years. /3
“Yang Zhu's choice was 'everyone for himself.' Though he might benefit the entire world by plucking out a single hair, he would not do it.”—Mencius, Jin Xin I, 26 [Chan] #individualism#liberalism
楊子取為我,拔一毛而利天下,不為也。
楊子取為我,
Yang • zi • gains • for sake of • self,
拔一毛而利天下,不為也。
pull • one • hair • and then • benefit • heaven • under, • not • do.
The directness of classical is better—the entire philosophy explained in three characters: 取為我 (“gains for me!”).
Yang Zhu said:
人人不损一毫,人人不利天下,天下治也
Everyone • not • lose • one • hair, • everyone • not • benefit • heaven • under, • heaven • under • order • is.
Thanks to @Mariusj001 for posting the original classical of what Yang Zhu is recorded saying.
A thread on Neo-Confucian “quiet-sitting.” 🧵 #靜坐#정좌
I’ll cover the most illuminating quotes from Zhu Xi’s correspondence on the matter of Confucian “jìngzuò” vs Sino-Buddhist meditation.
For China, meditation wasn’t a tradition in ancient times (500 BC). It was introduced by Buddhism (~400 AD). But those ritual structures were largely dismantled by the “Zen” Buddhist revolution (~900 AD), which were then effectively vanquished by the Neo-Confucians (1200 AD). /2
Zhu Xi noted the lack of this tradition in ancient times, yet masters were able to penetrate reality without it…
“You raised the question that Cheng Yi at times also taught people quiet-sitting. However, Confucius, Mencius, and earlier stages did not have such a teaching.” /3
“If everyone refrains from sacrificing even a single hair on their own head and if everyone refrains from benefiting the world, the world will be in order.”—Yang Zhu (d.360 BC) #楊朱
Q: Is this not Milton Friedman’s doctrine?
Discussion: It occurs to me how similar this Warring States philosophy is to the current philosophy of liberalism, especially Friedman’s neoliberalism. They are all extremist doctrines of selfishness which deny responsibility to, or even recognition of, civilization. /2
As Friedman famously said “There is one and only one social responsibility of business: to increase its profits.”
In his philosophy, if everyone pursues their own greed an “invisible hand” will magically bring the world into order. This is indeed Yang Zhu’s same doctrine! /3
“The world was well governed in earlier ages because of sages. It was well governed in later ages because of sages. The virtue of sages earlier or later was not different, and therefore good government in earlier ages and today is not different.”—Wang Chong, Han dynasty
“The nature of earlier ages was the same as the nature of later ages. Nature does not change, and its material forces do not alter. The people of earlier ages were the same as those of later ages.”—Wang Chong 2/4
What Wang Chong points out is key in macro historic analysis and forecasting—in our understanding of eternal forces: assume nature, and human nature, have not changed. At least as far as the core rules of the game; this time is probably not different. 3/4