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...

chinesetexts.stanford.edu 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.

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。

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:

https://twitter.com/solzi_sez/status/1832909979910893653

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.

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.

https://twitter.com/pschofie79/status/1825573346576130451

“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

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。

Thousands of years ago, Chinese civilization already had this debate: “individualism vs society.” 🧵

There’s something relevant here, in these conversations from 300 BC, for understanding both 1) East Asia, and 2) America’s failed path.

https://twitter.com/Solzi_Sez/status/1620209607036764160

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'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!”).

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

“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

“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

The Anglosphere’s entire 300-year model [capitalism + imperialism] is breaking. #SundayThoughts ☕️ 2. First, we need an objective review of history. It started with the British—navel based war, colonizing, and “forcing markets open.” Uhh, “free trade,” over the barrel of a white person’s gun.

British academic David Harvey lists typical explanations for capitalism’s crisis:

1. just human nature; greed
2. anglo-cultural origins
3. based on false theory; neoliberalism
4. institutional failure requires reconfiguration
5. failure of govt policy
2. He claims these all have truth. Partly human nature, certain parts are nurtured by American/British cultural roots, it features a central theory which is flawed, and it’s now seeing widespread institutional failures with a lack of policy response.

The S&P500 and CPC are both “superintelligences,” but quite different in their goal seek.

Let’s study the world’s two largest systems in terms of how they aggregate, and direct the efforts of, hundreds of millions of humans into their state-corporate systems. 2. First, what’s a superintelligence? “A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the most gifted human minds”—Wikipedia. But contrary to this definition, not hypothetical...

Western “defending myself” gun people can’t comprehend societies that 1) don’t have guns, 2) have impenetrable gated towers with CCTV and steels door, 3) are filled with civilized Confucian people; rarely a murder.

I can’t even *imagine* his scenario...

https://twitter.com/Gh0st_With_M0st/status/1359299212760866816

How would anyone break into my residence? It’s essentially impossible.

And if they did, how would they get out with my stuff, with CCTV watching?

And if I were there, why would I need to do/say anything? They would just see someone is there and run away.

Different worlds.

This is it—the core social problem of the Anglosphere this century—there is a deep cultural attitude in the colonies, who still see themselves as superior rulers of the world.

https://twitter.com/martjacques/status/1337372868817133570

Other civilizations don’t exist, in the mind of the West. Or at least they shouldn’t exist.

All the convoluted reasons given by them for why they hate China, are really just rage that a different civilization still exists.

Yes, the bigotry goes that deep. /2

POST-TRUTH ERA—WHY WEST, NOT EAST?

Q: How is it that America finds itself ripped apart by postmodernism (i.e. subjectivism / post-truth era), yet East Asia remains sanely grounded in reality?

Cc: @SRCHicks @ConceptualJames @jordanbpeterson @BryanVanNorden @StatesWarring Background: public intellectuals in the West have been addressing postmodernism (Stephen Hicks, Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, etc), yet they find themselves going over the same tired old philosophic ground and not really getting to root cause. /2

The #Anglosphere, in the 21st century.

It all goes back to the British Empire. It set up colonies, it set global markets rules, and it assumed itself king of this system forever. But...

...now Anglo exceptionalism faces an existential crisis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphe… Think about it, the UK set up these colonies. But any colony in Asia (e.g. Australia) is dependent on Asia, period.

There's no way around geography. Australia is in China's orbit. But how can the white-culture superiority complex ever psychologically deal with dependency? /2

BREAKING THRU THE ILLUSION OF DEMOCRACY
[US: #Democracy or #CorporateDictatorship?]

On the topic of American democracy being fake, let’s try to remove our minds from decades of state/corporate propaganda and think objectively for a moment... • DIRECT DEMOCRACY: The U.S. is *not* a direct democracy—at the federal level the people do not get a direct vote on the actions of the state. And at the local level, any choices that do appear are quite limited and rigged. 2/18

We need to differentiate between the “communist” Chinese government (which is conservative, pragmatic, realistic)...

...and Western Marxists (which are hyper-progressivist, idealistic, post-reality).

Not the same. Almost opposites? #RectificationOfNames 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).

The American “social justice” cancel cult operates outside the law with trial-by-media.

But it’s not even a trial, because only one side is “allowed” to argue their case! If you do anyhow, you are “supporting XYZ alleged crime,” which obviously begs the question.

https://twitter.com/soltaiyang/status/1302022371759456256

2/ Begging the question, for those who don’t know, is a logical fallacy in which an argument assumes its own conclusion (circular reasoning).

But postmodernism actually denies that reason is real!! It’s “a tool of the oppressor,” “everything is subjective,” etc. #CrazyTown

Mengzi (孟子 pronounced “Mung-za”), aka Mencius, was born 372 BC, 180 years after Confucius. What was his point, and contribution to Confucianism? After going thru his writings for the last month here are my thoughts…
#Mengzi #Mencius #Confucianism 2/ On the problem of ordering society, to avoid barbarism and collapses—Confucius pioneered the pragmatic system of 1) regular social rituals with proper form (禮), and 2) cultivation of one's humanity (仁). Confucius was mostly silent on humans’ core nature (important).