Eastern Philo prof's musings . . .

A Tu (圖) is Worth…

I was thinking about Zhou Dunyi’s Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate (taijitu 太極圖).

Well, about the general idea of such diagrams (tu) really. I’ve been a relative ignoramus about this, but some reading that I’ve been doing recently about whether or not Chinese characters are ideographs got me thinking about diagrams (there are very vehement denials of that thesis by linguists recently, from DeFrancis onward; I think Chad Hansen defends a version of the thesis, though he must have figured out a way to do it without relying on any “language of thought” assumptions). Apparently there was a movement, or “school” of diagrams and numerology. Robin Wang writes in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“From the Han dynasty through the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1912 CE), there was a consistent tension between two schools of thought: the school of xiangshu (images and numbers) and the school of yili (meanings and reasoning). At issue between them is how best to interpret the classics, particularly the Yijing. The question often was posed as: ‘Am I interpreting the six classics or are the six classics interpreting me?’

For the school of Xiangshu the way to interpret the classics is to produce a figurative and numerological representation of the universe through xiang (images) and shu (numbers). It held that xiangshu are indispensable structures expressing the Way of heaven, earth and human being. Thus the school of Xiangshu takes the position that ‘I interpret the classics’ by means of the images and numbers. The emphasis is on the appreciation of classics. The school of Yili, on the other hand, focuses on an exploration of the meanings of the classics on the basis of one’s own reconstruction. In other word, the school of Yili treats all classics as supporting evidence for their own ideas and theories. The emphasis is more on idiosyncratic new theories rather than the explanation of the classics. In what follows, our inquiry focuses on the legacy of the Xiangshu school.”

Does anyone know whether what Wang means by the “am I interpreting the classics or are they interpreting me” question is explicit in texts? That would be interesting, I think, for its early hermeneutic sophistication–depending on how early the question is made explicit I suppose.

Anyway, as usual, I have puzzles about diagrams–by now some of you have figured out that “puzzling” is my first approach to anything. One is about how a diagram is helpful. I assume it can display certain relationships through spatial metaphor better than linear discourse could. But how, in general, is a spatial metaphor very helpful for relaying information about non-spatial relationships? Related to that puzzle, I wonder whether sometimes the metaphor itself becomes something that needs explanation and ends up being unhelpful. Take the taijitu, for example. The diagram is, presumably, supposed to be helpful in explaining cosmological relationships. Every time I look at it however (or more to the point, every time a student asks about it), I feel like the diagram is itself a mystery. There’s further irony in the existence of the difficult commentary literature that develops around what the diagram is meant to convey. So, is the diagram helpful in this case or has it only generated an “epi-problem” over and above the cosmological relationships it was meant to clarify?

I wonder if there is something that makes this a general problem or just an issue for particular diagrams, such as the taijitu.

source

It is interesting, the commentary by other readers reference a Korean thinker who was the bete noir of one of my favorite thinkers: Yi Yulgok. Despite their differences, they both dealt with what modern philosophers would call “semiotics” and focused on the symbols such as those discussed in this post.

Now, I understand that in a philo board like this one, the symbols referenced are relatively esoteric, but I think Wang’s question: “am I interpreting the classics or are they interpreting me” is relevant to every tradition. To put it in a format accessible to the majority of the faithful on ILP, Christians: are you interpreting the Bible, or is the Bible interpreting you?

I find this an incredibly difficult question. I certainly bring my own biases to the study of any text in my tradition that I am presented with. Being born in the modern era, I can’t help many of those biases. Some of them I actually think aren’t bad. After all, Confucius is, as one blogger so eloquently put it, “A misogynistic poop”, and much the same can be said of any religious founder that can trace its legacy back to a time when proper religions were founded. I view overcoming the gynophobia (misogynistici poopery, if you will) of Confuncianism is a good thing, but how much of Confucianism is lost in the process? The Qi theory of existence is clearly anachronistic (Kalton and others developments in that area non-withstanding), but how much of the Mencius is lost in disregarding that?

These questions ought plague anyone of a long-standing tradition. How to bridge the foundation with the now? Traditional transmission easily takes care of 70-to-90-odd percent of that, but there should still be a lingering doubt, no? With respect to that last bit, is the dog wagging you or are you wagging the dog?

Xunz,

It seems to me that one has to accept the notion of an external reality in order to find images and numbers as meaningful. This appears to be in direct contradiction of what I know of Way. This perhaps because I’m more Taoist and find the constraints of Confucianism to obliquely render experience as less than. I find no external reality indicated in my study of Way. Quite the contrary, it is the interdependence of the constituents in an experience that is important. There is nothing but perspective, and no perspective from nowhere. To me, this suggests that there is no reality without me in it.

This isn’t to say that common relatinships couldn’t be rendered in images and numbers. We have much of that in our every day world. But images and numbers are interpreted by the observer, and there is no separation of that.

I’m probably missing your point, but that is what I am seeing. =D>

Well, a lot of it was spurred on by a recent essay in Dao entitled, “Is Tu Weiming a Confucian?” by Eske Møllgaard (a good Chinese name if I ever saw one). Reading that essay was, to me, like reading a Sedevacantist essay on the Pope. I mean, clearly Tu Weming is heavily influenced by existentialism, right? Only a blind man would miss that. But at the same time, I think dismissing Tu Weiming (or any post-May 4th Confucian philosopher, really) as a banana is hardly a means to advance a philosophy forward.

So that is it. Right?

I mean, you say that numbers and symbols aren’t ultimately meaningful, but ultimately semiotics tell us that it is only through symbols that we can understand the world. So we are either left with utter ignorance or vulgar relativism. Hardly seems a solid means to advance one’s self.

Let me quote Issac Asimov:

Xunz,

We’ll , I obviously said it badly, but what I meant was that numbers and symbols have no meaning outside an observer. They cannot stand alone. Given that there is no universal perspective point, (two identical observers) then there can be no ultimate number or symbol. Numbers and symbols can be generally agreed upon, but final specificity, understanding, and meaning is unique to each perspective. If we consider each perspective point to be a constant processual movement, (I think we are) then we add further distance between the observer and a potential static or fixed reality. There are certainly observable patterns, but no ONE pattern. We may apply convenient static constructs where needed, (time as governed by a clock) and we do so to make sense of the universe, but the symbols and numbers are constructs seen from a constantly changing perspective. (me). In short, meaning is whatever perspective I have… right… NOW!. Damn, it moved again.
I am sometimes amused that relativism is so often seen as a bogus ‘excuse’ to take any position one wants on any subject. But this is confusing the application of, and not the principle. Everything in the universe IS relative to something else. Our efforts to ‘fix’ reality is the error. As long as we don’t try to set our symbols in concrete, we may find general agreement in observable patterns, but seeing patterns of movement is not seeing an ultimate number or symbol.

I’m not sure about “advancement”. Advance where? We can build any sort of construct we wish for “advancement” measurements, but I see nothing to suggest that such efforts bring us any closer to reality than we are at this… moment… Crap, it moved again.

Eske Møllgaard… hmmmm, must be from one of those extreme northern provinces that got lost a couple thousand years ago…

It is precisely because of the non-fixed nature of the self that I lean the other way. The self is constantly in movement so I don’t think we can meaningfully talk about it as existing as-such. From that, we also have to understand how we relate to the world. In this regard, my mind can be said to be the mind of heaven not as an appeal to solipsism, but in fact the precise opposite. My mind is the mirror through which the world is viewed. To use a classical illustration, think of the moon’s reflection in the water. The water does not make the moon nor can the water even be said to make the reflection. The moon is doing both and the water is the passive player in this situation. We understand reality in the same way, stimulus-response-stimulus-response and until our minds can’t even be said to be separate from the world. If there is no moon, there can be no reflection but at the same time, without the water the moon would have nothing to reflect against so when considering the reflection itself, we have to say that it is coextensive with both parties.

The reflection of the moon is our symbolic understanding of reality and, indeed, is the only way that we can meaningfully understand it. Now, I take issue with the idiosyncratic nature of the individual that you’ve posited here. Human beings are really far more alike than not. We share all the same basic building blocks and many of the same experiences. Within a shared cultural context, these similarities become even more pronounced. Despite what Derrida would have you believe, communication between people works quite well (the fact that we can communicate is proof of this) so I’m not so sure we can posit a wall between people to the degree that you have here.

Xunz,
Re-read what I said. Yes, we all are more alike than un-like, and to the extent that we can agree, we communicate effectively. That’s what symbols are for - including these words. You use the moon, so I’ll see and raise you one rainbow. No one sees the same rainbow because one millimeter of different perspective is a different rainbow. We can enthusiastically describe the pattern, the shape, the colors, the brightness, etc. until we run out of descriptive symbols, but the fact that we did not see the same rainbow remains unaltered. Close, but no bananna. Is this a quibble? Perhaps, but it has consequences. We may be mirrors of reality, but each morror reflects a different image no matter how closely aligned they may appear. The danger lies in the tacit assumption that reality exists separately and apart from the observer. This leads to the concretization of images and numbers with discrete boundaries and borders. Symbols and numbers are abstracted constructs which may or may not be an accurate representation of reality, but they are not, cannot, be reality itself.

Nowhere have I asserted anything different. When I talk about reality as a hermeneutic process, that is what I am talking about.

Though I have to comment about the anti-Newtonian bent in the rainbow analogy. While what you are saying may ultimately be true, I would bring it back to Mr. Asimov’s comments at the beginning.

Would it be too much to say both? It is our dance with the universe, and it dancing with us. As always, through our looking glass darkly… I do enjoy a mystery! Don’t you?

It is both, but the question is how to balance it. If I am just cherry-picking aspects that I like and disregarding the rest, can I said to be even engaged in the tradition at all? All I’d really be doing in that case is using an authority to back up what I’m already thinking. Hardly a vehicle for self-cultivation. I think that the Yili school (whatever you want to call it, the idea is cross-cultural) presents a danger in producing just that. The other extreme is where all attempts at self-cultivation are lost and the individual is subsumed by a traditional narrative that is out-of-step with the modern world. That is why I think the Xiangshu approach is so appealing. While the images are still creations, as per the Yili school, the vocabulary is limited giving the student focus.

I don’t think the acknowledgement of the universality of utter relativity necessarily leads away from scientific pursuits. The fact that science works is enough - it’s not necessary to assume that science accurately describes some reality independent of our own involvement.

The conception of the mind as a mirror is certainly extremely useful - it means to see reality “as it is” requires us to stop muddying the water and let the perceiving mind settle into some level of transparency or reflectivity. But I’m concerned about the role values play in the process - also that we misunderstand the types and roles of various forms of knowledge. If I kill a fish in order to investigate it with more depth, I learn more about the fish - but in a very basic way I’m not studying the actual fish anymore. And the fish itself lived in a context. Was that context like the symphonic backdrop for an operatic vocalist? Or was the relationship more like the interplay between two jazz musicians? Or was it more like the relationship between a cloud and the atmosphere that contains it? Is there a ‘true’ distinction between fish and context that can be made at all?

I’ve questioned this the most in relation to the open-minded and liberal Quakers and their modern relationship to traditional conservative literalist Christianity. In my personal experience (I sat with them for a year or so and had some great conversations) some of them have to me a strange relationship to the Christian teachings - yet one I can easily understand. Seeing themselves as something akin to “Christian mystics”, many of them espouse a surprising disregard for literal biblical truths. But if almost no aspect of the Christian stories told to children were considered literally true, what power would there be to sustain adult interest in their particular version of spirituality? (Admittedly some of them don’t care about that at all - for them it’s all about a fairly non-potent new age-ism.) Can it be assumed that stories told to children - as stories, not history or literal truth - will have any really effective power to shape their teenaged and adult lives? I think there is a tendency most people have to want to smooth over all problems - make them go away really - so that our intellect can be satisfied, and subsequently the rest of our being as well. We might not know everything, but we’ve got a framework all in place that we can count on. But I think there are paradoxes that it is worthwhile not ignoring or covering up. If we psychologize all our inner conflicts into oblivion we likely lose sight of some very useful tools in life - for instance the role of corrective concepts. In other words I think the question “am I interpreting the classics or are they interpreting me” shouldn’t ever go away. We should always struggle at least to some extent with that dichotomy.

Depends. I think that much of what is being advocated here isn’t simple relativism but vulgar relativism, which does lead away from scientific (or any, really) pursuits. I also think that the relation between subject and object is very important for discussions like this one. While the reality that we experience ultimately cannot be separated from ourselves (hence the two can be said to be coextensive), I think it is important to address which one of these two modal aspects is dominant. Is the reflection of the moon more a function of the water or a function of the moon?

I think the first question that needs to be asked here is: are we studying fish or are we studying the fish? In the case of “the fish” you are certainly correct, but if we are studying “fish”, then killing that one fish has given us vital information about other fish. I think from there, it becomes clear this is a question about resolution. I can’t seem to find it right now, but Whitehead wrote about 4 dimensions of truth that are contradictory but a balance has to be struck between them. I’ll keep looking. If I can find it, I think that it would be helpful. The ILP search engine hasn’t been liking me much lately. Here is some food for thought:

Now, I think we can recognize this sort of thinking as ultimately being true. Reality is highly idiopathic in nature. But how specific, how trivial, do we have to get in order for that phenomenon to really manifest itself? For standard purposes, I think a more expansive model represents a better understanding of reality.

I can agree that it shouldn’t ever go away. Indeed, I think we are always caught between it for many of the reasons you’ve stated.

When I attempt to understand my culture of origin, I am the product of the culture I am interpreting. Harold Bloom says that personality, in the modern sense of the word, is a “Shakespearean invention”. If Shakespeare constitutes our understanding of personality, how can we understand our understanding of Shakespeare? Bloom also theorizes that some of the greatest literary works in history result from misreading of earlier works. Thus, in a manner like science’s accidental discoveries, culture sometimes creates through its mistakes.

I believe that in their depths, religions point beyond themselves. The source of religion, I am convinced, is the mystical apriori. It is at least an intuition which transcends the subject-object split. The theological circle of western religion, results from the attempt to codify the intuition in rational-historical terms. Eastern religions seem less inclined to do that, and therefore are sometimes viewed by westerners as mere poetry. Faith, in any case involves trusting one’s intuition of the “supreme ultimate” be it called God or the Tao or something else.

I don’t believe that the different approaches (i.e. in Buddhism “absolute truth” and “relative truth”) are mutually exclusive. It’s possible to have a total vision of the complete equality of all phenomena - that the reflection of the moon is simply the reflection of the moon and no more a function of the moon than of the water - and to also engage in the particularities and methods of scientific inquiry, which would naturally lead to the moon itself being more important than the water - and rightfully so within that realm of inquiry. Additionally, it is possible (and common, though seemingly not common enough) to maintain a broader mediating “ecological” perspective of the fact of interrelationship while studying any phenomenon (either “fish” or “the fish”) as a provisional singularity.

I agree. I actually think it tells us something about “the fish” as well. To me it’s about what I said above concerning different ways of knowing not being mutually exclusive. For instance in Buddhism on a personal level we can develop a greater ability to maintain panoramic awareness at the same time that we engage in one-pointed concentration. I think on a broader societal level, or as theoretical rather than experiential truths, it means that we can likewise maintain a broad perspective while engaging in detail and analysis. The relationship between synthesis and analysis and how we go about the back and forth process as a way of gaining understanding is very complex and interesting.

We might be saying the same thing? that different ways of looking at or understanding the world can fruitfully coexist?

Not being a scientist myself I’m very interested at the moment in what the role and value of Newtonian physics is in the scientific world. I think I heard someone say recently that Newtonian physics is “wrong” and needs to be abandoned. This strikes me as not completely true, but I wouldn’t know. Maybe someone could start a topic on that - I probably wouldn’t have anything to contribute, but I would be very interested in following the thread. hint hint.

I like ‘provisional singularity’, best adjective I’ve seen other than ‘conditioned’, lol. It’s like the forester necessarily grows a forest one tree at a time, using all the science at her disposal…but the fact is that everything that implies ‘forest’ can’t be separate from the process of ‘growing a tree’, and vice versa. Where I note red flags is when I see ‘singularlity’ without the adjective. I find sometimes reference to a “Universality”, “Oneness” or “Singularity” that implies some sort of something. Caught in paradox viewing the cloth as finished product, if you will. It doesn’t appear to appreciate the nature of the weaving, its emptiness.

I’m not a scientist either, but I consider it as simple arithmetic compared to the advanced math of the theory of relativity and so on. Simple arithmetic may be part of the path to a ‘truth’, but the path stretches in directions unimagined during Newton’s time. So what we previously thought 2 + 2 always meant doesn’t necessarily hold in all circumstances.

It’s like immersing oneself in the world is necessary before insight into its illusory nature becomes possible.

What came to me after reading Xunzian’s quote was that it’s not that different from the Buddhist understanding, or maybe we just find it familiar, since Buddhism evolved based on the ‘inner’ science of the mind (as opposed to scientific study of ‘the brain’). It’s still a science for all intents and purposes, but relegated sometimes to a philosophy or theology because of its goal of liberation from our conditioned existence and its consequential suffering. The ‘outer sciences’ have their place and they help to improve our lives, but they don’t liberate us in this sense.

I agree of course.

Like you, I was also relating the Newtonian question back to my own understanding of the Buddhist teachings - that there are teachings that are considered provisional and teachings that are considered ultimate. I assume most scientists would see Newton’s physics as provisionally necessary.

And my understanding is that you can understand them in that way only because of their emptiness.

Good point.

See, while I do think that both water and moon play a role, the dominant aspect of the moon with respect to the image is important. That’s because I think that telos can only be imposed from without, so while the image of the moon clearly arises from the water the pattern of what arises out of the water is a function of the moon. This becomes important when considering things like the unity of knowledge and action because we aren’t just talking about the image of the moon in the water, the water is reflecting the whole of the night sky and probably much of the shoreline, so the image of the moon may be obscured by something else. The entire architecture of the mind has to be considered in issues like this.

That’s where I’m not so sure. If we consider the architecture of our mind, different ways of knowing can and will result in different patterns of behavior.

I think we are closer in understanding than this discussion might initially suggest. As for Newtonian physics, I think that the Asimov quote covers my standing on that issue pretty well. I would be very reluctant to take a modern thinker seriously if they advocated the abandonment of Newtonian physics. When I throw a ball, it is perfectly Newtonian, when I drive my car it is modeled by Newtonian physics, heck, when engineers designed that car they used Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics even got us to the moon!

Now, the ideology that gave rise to Newtonian physics (natural law theory, designed universe, ect.) ought be discarded . . . but that isn’t saying anything controversial since they already have been.

Dominant in respect to scientific investigation of the moon? Of course - I said that. Are you saying the moon is dominant to the water no matter what?

I’m confused. What aren’t you sure about? What kind of knowing leads to what kind of behavior? I’m advocating a pliable mind that can understand the same phenomena in different ways, dependent on purpose, context, mode of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is incomplete knowledge. Balancing that knowledge or adding to it doesn’t diminish scientific knowledge any more than a broad ecological perspective makes a person less able to engage in detailed analytical investigation.

I always thought our views were very similar. How did you initially see them as different?

It’s a metaphor for the self vs. other. The material force of the moon bestows the water with principle, but the nature of that principle arises from the water itself.

If knowledge and action are unified, one would be tempted to think that the water always reflects the moon. While it is the water’s nature to reflect the moon, it is possible that the moon can be obscured by some other object closer at hand. So while we discuss the moon’s reflection, we are not talking about a perfect reflection of the moon but rather portions of it. This is what is meant by “will”.

While I agree our understanding can change as a matter of perspective, but that is a function of all knowledge being necessarily limited so all we can do is construct an understanding of the world. This is what is meant by a hermeneutic reality – because of our limitations, all we can meaningfully understand of “the moon” is its reflection in us. But that begs the question posed in this thread: am I interpreting the classics or are the classics interpreting me. Additionally, we need to ask ourselves which model of understanding leads to the best action.

Oh, I agree. I just think that even within the context of this thread, where we seem to disagree, our disagreements stem from a broader agreement.