- 26 Nov 2009 04:32
#13248311
I am not sure I understand what you mean by linear, but if it relates (directly or indirectly) to the fact that Daoism did not develop linearly, then I agree with you, moreover I would say that no modern religions or philosophy schools are linear.
That does not seem to invite the debate, so unless you're willing to elaborate a bit, I can't really force you into a discussion you don't wish to have.
And that is the heart of the problem, why would you even care forming an opinion about my knowledge of Chinese history? You know nothing about me, and this opinion can only hinder your understanding of what I am writing. I have no opinion about your knowledge of chinese history, and I don't care about it. Whatever you are going to write, I am going to check it against my own knowledge, against all the sources I have at my disposition until I find a direct confirmation or a direct contradiction of what you say (in case of a fact), most of the times (especially if it is an analysis), I'll find neither of them, but then I'll try to adapt my thinking to your point of view and see how I feel about it, whether there is an existing system in which it makes sense, and it is from this point of view that I will conceive of a critique, if I can think of any, or of an agreement with your view.
And this process is, to me, the meaning of the chapter 49, one first has to agree with someone else (i.e. to adopt his relative point of view) before disagreeing, any other kind of disagreement is sterile, it merely qualifies as a misunderstanding, a dead end of debate. But at no point in this process will I ever need to conceive an opinion about your knowledge of Chinese history, at best, I will oppose your view on one specific point, and anyway, my opposition will always be open to criticisms, because the process I just described never ensures a right understanding of your point, it merely is an attempt at approaching your view, and not necessarily a successful one.
You understood almost the exact opposite of what I meant: The lives of early people were without a doubt less stressful than those of modern people, strict regulations are much safer than the current unregulated environment, fearing the unknown to the point of staying at home is much less stressful than exploring this unknown when fear allows you to go there (because, then, you're provoking fear, you disobey it, and activate it). Despite that, the joy of such an exploration is also much more rewarding for the human mind, stress is not an evil that must be eliminated at all cost, some stress motivates human being and prompts him to adapt and to improve himself.
There is a positive stress and a negative one, one that prompts adaptation and self-improvement, and one that is harmful and leads to depression, modern societies have developed both, without much discrimination, if humanity is to strive further, it will have to recognize this distinction, and find a dynamical balance between stress and comfort.
DubiousDan wrote:However, your comments on archeology and philology are not consistent with my understanding. As I said before, Taoism is nonlinear.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by linear, but if it relates (directly or indirectly) to the fact that Daoism did not develop linearly, then I agree with you, moreover I would say that no modern religions or philosophy schools are linear.
DubiousDan wrote:I still don’t believe you understand. You probably never will, but then, again, you might.
That does not seem to invite the debate, so unless you're willing to elaborate a bit, I can't really force you into a discussion you don't wish to have.
DubiousDan wrote:You may not be an American capitalist, but my opinion of your knowledge of Chinese history has not changed much.
And that is the heart of the problem, why would you even care forming an opinion about my knowledge of Chinese history? You know nothing about me, and this opinion can only hinder your understanding of what I am writing. I have no opinion about your knowledge of chinese history, and I don't care about it. Whatever you are going to write, I am going to check it against my own knowledge, against all the sources I have at my disposition until I find a direct confirmation or a direct contradiction of what you say (in case of a fact), most of the times (especially if it is an analysis), I'll find neither of them, but then I'll try to adapt my thinking to your point of view and see how I feel about it, whether there is an existing system in which it makes sense, and it is from this point of view that I will conceive of a critique, if I can think of any, or of an agreement with your view.
And this process is, to me, the meaning of the chapter 49, one first has to agree with someone else (i.e. to adopt his relative point of view) before disagreeing, any other kind of disagreement is sterile, it merely qualifies as a misunderstanding, a dead end of debate. But at no point in this process will I ever need to conceive an opinion about your knowledge of Chinese history, at best, I will oppose your view on one specific point, and anyway, my opposition will always be open to criticisms, because the process I just described never ensures a right understanding of your point, it merely is an attempt at approaching your view, and not necessarily a successful one.
DubiousDan wrote:As for your understanding of anthropology, perhaps I misunderstood you, but if you are saying that before civilization people lived lives which were strictly regulated by taboos and fears of the unknown. If you meant their lives were more stressful than those of people today, that is not quite the opinion of modern anthropology. If you meant something different, I apologize.
You understood almost the exact opposite of what I meant: The lives of early people were without a doubt less stressful than those of modern people, strict regulations are much safer than the current unregulated environment, fearing the unknown to the point of staying at home is much less stressful than exploring this unknown when fear allows you to go there (because, then, you're provoking fear, you disobey it, and activate it). Despite that, the joy of such an exploration is also much more rewarding for the human mind, stress is not an evil that must be eliminated at all cost, some stress motivates human being and prompts him to adapt and to improve himself.
There is a positive stress and a negative one, one that prompts adaptation and self-improvement, and one that is harmful and leads to depression, modern societies have developed both, without much discrimination, if humanity is to strive further, it will have to recognize this distinction, and find a dynamical balance between stress and comfort.
"'Progress" is cursed; the industrial civilization of the century is execrated,...and, at the same time, the poet revels in the special color and brilliancy this civilization has brought to human life" Jules Lemaitre(Paris, 1895)