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.
In my experience learning to *decipher* Classical Chinese is not that hard. You do not really need to “learn it,” as some arduous monstrous task. For example: you do NOT need to speak it, you do NOT need to write it, and you do NOT even need to memorize characters. And you just CAN use dictionaries and other tools.
With all that eliminated, in order to decipher what your favorite Chinese phrases say, you mostly just need to learn 1) ancient grammar, and 2) concept meanings. Phrases are simply new concepts strung together in unfamiliar grammar, that is all. And that is the exciting part: thinking differently.
So you start with one 4-8 character phrase, and once you solve those two things, you have deciphered it. Basically I think of it more like solving crossword puzzles than “learning a language.” Or at least that is how I did it, using the Stanford methodology...
FYI, I also learn modern Korean, and that is a totally different feeling process...like climbing a freakin' mountain!! Nearly impossible. But in my experience, Classical Chinese does not work like learning other languages; it uses a different skill set and part of our brain.
Also, something followers might not know, but I totally suck at verbal fields. Even as a kid my native language ability was near retard. But I took to Classical right from the beginning, as it does not really dwell in the pedantic verbal mind, more like math/geometry/concepts.
CONFUCIAN WORD OF THE DAY
yīnyáng 陰陽: “yin and yang”
Here is another compact definition I put together from reading Chen Chun’s “Definition of Terms.” Westerners don’t know the popularization and philosophical elaboration of yinyang and the famous symbol, was by Confucians.
① The production of man and things does not go beyond the animated forces of yin and yang. Originally there is only one material force. In its division there are the yin and yang. Yin and yang are further divided into the Five Agents.
– Chen Chun, An Explanation of Terms in the Four Books 1:3, tr. Chan modifed
人物之生,不出乎陰陽之氣。本只是一氣,分來有陰陽,陰陽又分來為五行。
② In their ceaseless successions the two elements of yin and yang constitute the great principles of the universe.
– Zhang Zai, Reflections on Things at Hand 1:44, tr. Chan modified
In order to understand Chinese philosophy, we need a broad curriculum, *not* reading one text in isolation, and definitely not starting with the Daodejing (should a newbie begin with Nietzsche to understand Western philosophy?!). Here are three examples of normal curriculums:
First example: Chinese immigrant Wing-tsit Chan made a textbook for Americans to address their problem—chronological, logically starting with what would become the dominant theme of Chinese philosophy, “humanism,” and its base texts (the Four Books), and later introduces Daoism.
Second example: Here is a standard Korean high school textbook. Again, it logically starts with Kongzi > Mengzi > Xunzi > Zhu Xi > Wang Yangming > plus Korean Yulgok & Toegye, to set the cultural baseline. This is Korean culture! Only later does it introduce Laozi and Zhuangzi.
Westerners should do less orientalism and read actual history. Zhu Xi knew this 800 years ago and advised against it, crushing the Buddhist-inspired trend, hence meditation not really being a thing in East Asia today.
“One seeks the mind with the mind, one employs the mind with the mind, like the mouth gnawing the mouth or the eye seeing the eye. Such an operation is precarious and oppressive, the road dangerous and obstructed, and the principle empty and running against its own course.” – ZX
Despite all the talk in the Anglosphere of “Zen and meditation,” in my actual reading of the texts, I do not recall that being a focus at all, at least not the Western-marketed meditation style. I would cite Wing-tsit Chan’s summarization in the preface to his Chan translations:
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