Bit by Bit - Chapter 4, Part 1

Trey Smith

Yen Hui went to see Confucius and asked permission to take a trip.

"Where are you going?"

"I'm going to Wei."

"What will you do there?"

"I have heard that the ruler of Wei is very young. He acts in an independent manner, thinks little of how he rules his state, and fails to see his faults. It is nothing to him to lead his people into peril, and his dead are reckoned by swampfuls like so much grass. His people have nowhere to turn. I have heard you say, Master, `Leave the state that is well ordered and go to the state in chaos! At the doctor's gate are many sick men.' I want to use these words as my standard, in hopes that I can restore his state to health."

"Ah," said Confucius, "you will probably go and get yourself executed, that's all. The Way doesn't want things mixed in with it. When it becomes a mixture, it becomes many ways; with many ways, there is a lot of bustle; and where there is a lot of bustle, there is trouble - trouble that has no remedy! The Perfect Man of ancient times made sure that he had it in himself before he tried to give it to others. When you're not even sure what you've got in yourself, how do you have time to bother about what some tyrant is doing?
~ Burton Watson translation ~

All throughout my time as a social worker, I was aware of this dichotomy.  Here I was working to help others deal with interpersonal and/or social relationship issues and yet I probably was more screwed up than they were!  This is not to suggest that I was bad at my job -- I was very good at some aspects and not so much so at others -- but it WAS rather strange!

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

Stick Your Finger Wherever You Like!

Trey Smith

In past columns, I have lamented how our government has not only stripped away core civil liberties from citizens, but that citizens have become increasing passive and accepting of the loss of such freedoms. A new poll conducted by Harris Interactive offers a particularly chilling measure of just how passive and accepting citizens have become to the new realities of our internal security system. The poll found almost one third of American adults would accept a “TSA body cavity search” in order to fly. Moreover a majority believes that it is reasonable to criminalize the act of disobeying any TSA agent.

The survey was conducted online by Harris Interactive on behalf of Infowars from November 5-7 among 2059 American adults. People were asked: “Given the recent reports concerning the threat posed by terrorists who plan to implant bombs within their own bodies, how willing, if at all, would you be to undergo a TSA body cavity search in order to fly?” Thirty percent said yes.
~ from Poll: One-Third of Americans Would Accept Cavity Searches By TSA by Jonathan Turley ~

Gosh, I'm almost speechless! You can't get much more invasive than that.

I'm trying to think of something cogent to write here...

Mencius - Book 7, Part 1, Chapter 20

Mencius said, 'The superior man has three things in which he delights, and to be ruler over the kingdom is not one of them.

'That his father and mother are both alive, and that the condition of his brothers affords no cause for anxiety; this is one delight.

'That, when looking up, he has no occasion for shame before Heaven, and, below, he has no occasion to blush before men; this is a second delight.

'That he can get from the whole kingdom the most talented individuals, and teach and nourish them; this is the third delight.

'The superior man has three things in which he delights, and to be ruler over the kingdom is not one of them.'

~ James Legge translation via nothingistic.org ~

 Go here to read the introductory post to this serialized version of the Works of Mencius.

Is There a Problem?

Scott Bradley

Xunzi, a third century (BCE) Confucian philosopher, spent considerable effort denouncing the philosophies of others, including Zhuangzi. "Zhuang Zhou", he wrote, "was blinded by nature and was insensible to people." (Xunzi 79/21/22; Knoblock)

His point, I believe, was that Zhuangzi took nature as the whole and humanity as a part of that whole; he read humanity through the eye of nature rather than nature through the eye of humanity. For Xunzi, nature, read through the apparently inherent moral sense of humanity (though he thought humanity immoral), was essentially moral. For Zhuangzi, humanity, read through the apparent amorality of nature, was essentially amoral.

Xunzi was worried about morality, but from the Daoist perspective, his morality was the cause of immorality, while Zhuangzi's amorality resulted in true morality. The imposition of law from without, whether it be celestial or the whim of a dictator, only serves to bring about lawlessness. (This is also the foundation for the Pauline doctrine of grace: The law causes one to transgress; grace allows one to be forgiven; living in grace, law is no longer required, its end having been achieved in the negative by having demonstrated the need for grace, and in the positive by having allowed grace to write the law on the heart — “Love God, and do as you please.")

This brings us back to that persistent problem of the relationship between "Heaven" and humanity. Both Zhuangzi and Xunzi agree that there is a possible disjunction between the two — humanity is capable of acting outside of nature. For Xunzi, humanity acts outside of nature when it fails to act morally. For Zhuangzi, humanity acts outside of nature when, in the application of morality, it fails to act spontaneously. But is there really a disjunction, a problem?

I think there is. Though it is impossible that anything could be outside nature (Dao), and thus all that humanity does cannot be other than what nature does, still humanity is capable of self- and nature-destruction. (Though nature, as emergent Dao, remains ever-emerging.) Call it free-will or call it a quantum of Chaos, or just accept it as unfathomable paradox. Not-One is also One.

What all this resolves to is an affirmation of a belief in the normative; there is a place for us to speak of a "better" way to live. Zhuangzi, for all his aversion to value judgments, points to what he believes to be alternative ways to live, and suggests some are "better" than others. But that which makes them "better" is not based on any moral judgment or a closer approximation to "truth", but simply that they make for a happier life. And this, I think, is the most powerful apologetic possible. Make your choices, remembering that they have no bearing on anything beyond that.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Mencius - Book 7, Part 1, Chapter 19

Mencius said, 'There are persons who serve the prince; they serve the prince, that is, for the sake of his countenance and favor.

'There are ministers who seek the tranquility of the State, and find their pleasure in securing that tranquility.

'There are those who are the people of Heaven. They, judging that, if they were in office, they could carry out their principles, throughout the kingdom, proceed so to carry them out.

'There are those who are great men. They rectify themselves and others are rectified.'

~ James Legge translation via nothingistic.org ~

 Go here to read the introductory post to this serialized version of the Works of Mencius.

Diving In?

Trey Smith

Over the past 6 months or so, Della and I have done a lot of soul searching. We've questioned the wisdom of owning our own home and we've come to the conclusion it's probably not for us. While Della enjoys her job as a care provider to elderly folk, the sometimes strenuous nature of the work is taking a toll on her physically. In general, we've been examining where we are and where else we could be.

During this time, my brother Sean began exploring possibilities through AmeriCorps VISTA (something I have been suggesting to him for years!). He ended up applying for several positions and was recently selected by a program in the Kansas City Metro area. He began his year of service this past Monday.

Sean, of course, suggested that Della might take a look into AmeriCorps. In looking at the opportunities here in Washington state, she found one, in particular, that really piqued her interest, the Washington Reading Corps (WRC). WRC members tutor young students who are having a difficult time with learning to read. With 7 years of experience as an Assistant Teacher in the federally-funded Head Start program, Della decided these positions were something she would like to pursue.

The timing of her decision was a bit off of the typical AmeriCorps schedule. She began to look seriously at opportunities about one month AFTER most sites had made their selections for the 2012-13 year. That was okay by us because we realized we have a lot of things we would need to get in order before taking this plunge and so she began the application process early for the 2013-14 year.

She eventually applied to a program that serves school districts in the Columbia Gorge area (on the Washington side). We didn't expect to hear from them for several months. To our utter surprise, they contacted her two weeks ago and she has an interview scheduled for Monday. Even more shocking, they still have several openings for THIS service year!

So, we may be diving into this new world a lot sooner than we anticipated. If selected for one of the open AmeriCorps positions, Della's start date would be January 16, not September 1 (as we had planned for). Talk about a shock to the system!

Putting this situation in Taoist terms, we're prepared to go with the flow...even if that flow has a few more rapids than we were expecting.

Afternoon Matinee: The Weird Al Story 3/6

Oh No, Not Here

Trey Smith

If you look at a map of the world, US military and CIA bases pop up all over the place. We have one or more on every continent except Antarctica. Many nations house several.

When the US decides that it needs to build a base in some far flung corner of the world, it is next too impossible for the "host" nation to say no. We employ all sorts of strategies and outright threats to get our way. A nation may not want a foreign [US] base on its soil, but, in the end, it is almost ALWAYS built.

But as my wife mused the other day, it is quite interesting that there is NOT one foreign base on US soil. There are no German airfields. There are no Saudi naval bases. There are no Korean boot camps. There are no Peruvian forts.

Foreign soldiers often serve at our domestic military installations, but they are there as guests. It is not THEIR base; it's ours.

Can you imagine the furor it would create if Iran, Spain, Brazil or Cambodia announced their intention to build a base within our borders? Americans of all stripes would be up in arms. The general thought would be, "How dare they!"

And yet, the vast majority of Americans see no contradiction when the shoe is on the other foot. When our government leaders announce plans to build a military installation outside of our national borders, most Americans think nothing of it. In fact, many of my fellow citizens will tell you that the host nation should be tickled pink.

Yes, another example of American Exceptionalism.

Bit by Bit - Chapter 3, Part 8

Trey Smith

When Lao Tan died, Chin Shih went to mourn for him; but after giving three cries, he left the room.

"Weren't you a friend of the Master?" asked Lao Tzu's disciples.

"Yes."

"And you think it's all right to mourn him this way?"

"Yes," said Chin Shih. "At first I took him for a real man, but now I know he wasn't. A little while ago, when I went in to mourn, I found old men weeping for him as though they were weeping for a son, and young men weeping for him as though they were weeping for a mother. To have gathered a group like that, he must have done something to make them talk about him, though he didn't ask them to talk, or make them weep for him, though he didn't ask them to weep. This is to hide from Heaven, turn your back on the true state of affairs, and forget what you were born with. In the old days, this was called the crime of hiding from Heaven. Your master happened to come because it was his time, and he happened to leave because things follow along. If you are content with the time and willing to follow along, then grief and joy have no Way to enter in. In the old days, this was called being freed from the bonds of God.

"Though the grease burns out of the torch, the fire passes on, and no one knows where it ends."
~ Burton Watson translation ~

Each life is extinguished at some point. It will happen to all of us. We will leave behind loved ones and friends.

When we mourn a death, we don't mourn FOR the dead; we mourn for ourselves and the living. We experience the sorrow of knowing that we won't be able to share and communicate with the deceased again. The pain is not theirs; it is ours alone.

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

Public Interest or Self-Interest

Trey Smith

Corporate CEOs across the nation are pushing for what they call a "Grand Bargain" in relation to the supposed "fiscal cliff" facing Congress. The "bargain" they support is continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy and offsetting these with massive cuts to most government spending with the exception, of course, to our "hallowed" military-industrial complex. They favor such a plan because it is in THEIR sole self-interest. It would mean far greater profits to bump up their already increasing bottom lines.

There is another group pushing a plan as well. Unlike the CEOs, this plan does not involve self-interest; it promotes the interests of the overall public. And these folks aren't some yahoos either. They are economists -- ya know, people who study and better understand how economies work! Over 350 economists from across the country have issued the following statement.

The U.S. economy, once in free-fall toward a new depression, has begun to recover. But we are still mired in a prolonged slump marked by mass unemployment, rising poverty, and declining wages. And the fragile recovery is threatened by obsessive concern with cutting deficits that has infected both parties.

As even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recognizes, it is long term unemployment, not excessive deficits or debt, that is now inflicting the greatest human toll and economic damage. Polls show that voters agree joblessness and a bad economy are much higher priorities than deficits.

Yet too many in Washington are fixated on cutting public spending to balance the budget, not on how to put people back to work and get our economy going. There is no theory of economics that explains how we can deflate our way to recovery. Businesses are not basing investment decisions on how much Congress cuts the debt in 2023. As Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and Greece have shown, inflicting austerity on a weak economy leads to deeper recession, rising unemployment and increasing misery.

In a deep recession, deficit reduction is a moving target. If you cut spending and consumer purchasing power in an already depressed economy, unemployment rises and revenues fall — and the goal of a smaller deficit keeps receding like a mirage in a desert. When private purchasing power is depressed by the aftermath of a financial collapse, only public investment can make up the gap.

The budget hawks have the sequence backwards. Public outlay for jobs and recovery come first, growth is restored, and revenues follow. Budget cuts in a deep slump lead only to a deeper slump.

The government should invest in areas vital to our economy — to repair crumbling infrastructure, to build 21st-century smart-grid, public transportation and renewable energy systems, and to create public and private sector jobs. We should also help states prevent layoffs of teachers and other public servants, make early care and higher education more affordable, and create public service jobs throughout the nation. It can do so by borrowing at record low interest rates. We can also stimulate recovery without increasing deficits by increasing taxes on the wealthy and pumping the proceeds directly into the economy.

Both bipartisan and conservative deficit reduction plans — Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, and the Republican budget — magically assume a recovery to "normal" levels of employment. Yet, the economy is nowhere near normal growth, and budget cutting will only retard growth. At the end of the year, we face a congressionally-created "fiscal cliff," with automatic "sequestration" spending cuts everyone agrees should be stopped to prevent a double-dip recession. That threat has led to backroom negotiations, backed by a multimillion dollar public relations campaign, toward a "grand bargain" that would maintain tax give-aways for the rich; cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and impose new, job-killing spending cuts. This is no bargain, and it should be rejected.

President Obama should be commended for proposing a new jobs program. But unless the balance of power in Congress changes dramatically, there is a serious danger that after the election the austerity lobby will prevail.

We need jobs first. With recovery, deficit reduction will come of its own accord thanks to increased revenues in an improving economy. That was the case in the three decades after World War II — when the debt to GDP ratio declined from over 120 percent of GDP in 1945 to under 30 percent by 1978.

In 1945, our leaders placed a priority on putting people to work, not cutting spending. So government doubled down with public investments like the GI bill, housing, and highways — and widespread collective bargaining and equal opportunity laws made sure the rewards of growth were widely shared. Today, we need the same scale of public investments that made sure the greatest generation and their children enjoyed growth, opportunity, and shared prosperity.

In the face of today's weak economy, the Federal Reserve has vowed to sustain extraordinary measures until unemployment comes down and the economy picks up. But as Chairman Ben Bernanke observed, very low interest rates alone cannot fix this economy. To make sure the American people are not crippled by another lost decade of joblessness, we need presidential leadership — and congressional action — to spur jobs and growth, not dangerous austerity.

Mencius - Book 7, Part 1, Chapter 18

Mencius said, 'Men who are possessed of intelligent virtue and prudence in affairs will generally be found to have been in sickness and troubles.

'They are the friendless minister and concubine's son, who keep their hearts under a sense of peril, and use deep precautions against calamity. On this account they become distinguished for their intelligence.'

~ James Legge translation via nothingistic.org ~

 Go here to read the introductory post to this serialized version of the Works of Mencius.

The Positive Side of the Negative

Scott Bradley

In his various descriptions of the zhenren, the Authentic Person, Zhuangzi definitely tends to emphasize the negative — what he is not rather than what he is. Daniel Coyle ("On the Zhenren"; Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi) explains how this is for good reason:

Both Laozi and Zhuangzi employ negative language because the absence of prescriptivity leaves a topic open to interpretation and keeps it personal. One cannot be told what is consistent with one's own integrity; one can only be informed of possible elements of coercion that might impede one's own spontaneity.

We are told, for instance, that the zhenren of old "could transgress and yet not be regretful, or hit the mark and not be self-satisfied". If she was not regretful and not self-satisfied, what was she? The only way to find out is to experience it. These negatives are the negation of the coercion of conventional morality; to provide a positive alternative would be prescriptive and therefore simply more coercion.

There is always an implied evaluative judgment in even this approach; it is understood that there is a problem, there is pain and disharmony, and another happier way is suggested. But the suggestion that one rediscover spontaneity as a liberating experience in the expression of one's unique experience leaves things relatively open-ended. This is not what one should do, but what one can do.

Finally, Zhuangzi never actually tells us, in this passage at least, that we should be like the Authentic Persons "of old" (which I take as a means to offering a hypothetical possibility, not an appeal to an actual historic past reality); instead, he simply describes such ones and leaves it to us as to whether we might want to explore the possibility of becoming likewise.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter one way or the other what we choose to do or not do. There are no cosmic consequences at stake; this is not about redemption, but about living a happier life during our brief emergence in the ever-unfolding field of Dao.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Mencius - Book 7, Part 1, Chapter 17

Mencius said, 'Let a man not do what his own sense of righteousness tells him not to do, and let him not desire what his sense of righteousness tells him not to desire; to act thus is all he has to do.'

~ James Legge translation via nothingistic.org ~

 Go here to read the introductory post to this serialized version of the Works of Mencius.

Finger Wagging

Trey Smith

One human behavior that most of us have little patience for is the individual who adopts a "holier than thou" stance. A situation arises and the pompously pious person wags their finger in your face explaining how THEY would never have addressed it in such a stupid, clumsy or evil way that you did. As bad as this behavior is, it's even more galling when that same person later is found to address a similar situation in the exact same way or worse! And yet, they continue to wag their finger at you.

I often think that much of the rest of the world gets damn sick and tired of the US government wagging their fingers at others for the same type of sins we routinely commit. This is the quintessential essence of American Exceptionalism. In his Tuesday column, Glenn Greenwald offers a clear example of this.

For several decades, the US government - in annual "human rights" reports issued by the State Department (reports mandated by the US Congress) - has formally condemned nations around the globe for the practice of indefinite detention: imprisoning people without charges or any fixed sentence. These reports, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her preface to last year's document, are grounded in the principle that "respect for human rights is not a western construct or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability everywhere." That 2011 report condemned numerous nations for indefinite detention, including Libya ("abuse and lack of review in detention"), Uzbekistan ("arbitrary arrest and detention"), Syria ("arbitrary arrest and detention"), and Iran ("Authorities held detainees, at times incommunicado, often for weeks or months without charge or trial").

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government is engaged in a fierce and protracted battle over the fundamental right to be free of indefinite detention. Specifically, the US is demanding that the governments of those two nations cease extending this right to their citizens. As a Washington Post article this morning details, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is insisting that the US fulfill its commitment to turn over all prisons, including the notorious facility at Bagram, to Afghan control, but here is one major impediment [emphasis added]:

"Afghan and U.S. officials have also disagreed on the issue of detention without trial. Washington wants the Afghan government to continue holding certain prisoners it views as dangerous, even if there is not enough evidence to try them.

"Aimal Faizi, the chief spokesman for Karzai, told reporters Monday that detention without trial is illegal in Afghanistan and that more than 50 Afghans are still being held in U.S. custody at Bagram, 35 miles northeast of Kabul, even though they have been ordered released by Afghan courts."

The US has long been demanding that the Afghan government continue the American practice of indefinite detention without charges, and still presses this demand even after the top Afghan court in September ruled that such detentions violate Afghan law.

He goes on to show that this same argument is being lodged by the US with the Iraqi government. As Greenwald aptly points out, this call for indefinite detention is ironic as hell since the US has declared that our wars in these two countries are spurred by our unflinching desire to bring "democracy and freedom" to the Afghans and Iraqis.

Some freedom, indeed!!

Afternoon Matinee: The Weird Al Story 2/6

The Fawning Press

Trey Smith

The book is so one-sided that it is almost supernaturally dull, and I was forgetting about it just minutes after I put it down.

Then it hit me – it was an interesting book, after all! Because if you read All In carefully, the book's tone will remind you of pretty much any other authorized bio of any major figure in business or politics (particularly in business), and it will most particularly remind you of almost any Time or Newsweek famous-statesperson profile.

Which means: it's impossible to tell the difference between the tone of a reporter who we now know was literally sucking the dick of her subject and the tone of just about any other modern American reporter who is given access to a powerful person for a biography or feature-length profile.
~ from One Interesting Thing About Paula Broadwell's Petraeus Biography by Matt Taibbi ~

Utilizing his typical streey-savvy prose, Taibbi points out where mainstream journalism has gone off the rails. Reporters have become sycophants of the powerful people they cover!

The mainstream press defends itself by claiming that access to the rich and powerful is what forces this behavior. If denied inner access, they claim, they would be hard-pressed to report the "news" of the day. So, they are forced by circumstances to become lapdogs.

It is an inane argument! What it really exposes for all the world to see is that, by and large, mainstream journalists have grown lazy. They don't want to do the legwork necessary to investigate much of anything. It's so much easier to schmooze with government and corporate leaders who then spoon-feed the press propaganda masquerading as unmitigated objective facts. Why do a bunch of research and interview countless individuals when you can be handed a pre-written story -- what used to be called a press release -- to attach your name to?

In the olden days -- though there have ALWAYS been reporters who have acted as the mouthpiece of the powerful -- journalists worked to keep a distance from those they covered. They saw their role as being adversaries to the rich and powerful. Anything that was derived from the powerful was distrusted and not reported as fact until it could be verified three or four times over.

With few exceptions, those days have come and gone. Democracy has suffered greatly as a result.

Bit by Bit - Chapter 3, Part 7

Trey Smith

When Kung-wen Hsuan saw the Commander of the Right, he was startled and said, "What kind of man is this? How did he come to be footless? Was it Heaven? Or was it man?"

"It was Heaven, not man," said the commander. "When Heaven gave me life, it saw to it that I would be one-footed. Men's looks are given to them. So I know this was the work of Heaven and not of man. The swamp pheasant has to walk ten paces for one peck and a hundred paces for one drink, but it doesn't want to be kept in a cage. Though you treat it like a king, its spirit won't be content."
~ Burton Watson translation ~

Each person is born with a deformity of some kind. For some people, it's a physical abnormality. For others, it may be mental, psychological or emotional. And some of us have a few of each!

The more people I meet as I travel through life, the more I think that "normal" is much like "perfection" -- it doesn't actually exist.

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

When the Saints Come Marching In

Trey Smith

We need a Slut Moment.

As CIA director, David Petraeus led an organization that carries out extrajudicial assassinations, overthrows foreign heads of state and fires drone missiles at innocent civilians. For his performance as a leading state terrorist, General Petraeus received four stars, 28 motorcycle policemen to escort him to a girlfriend’s house, and nearly universal acclaim.

For cheating on his wife, he was forced to resign in disgrace. (Since his lover, a West Point graduate, was not a spy, national security was not at issue.)

What is wrong with our values?

I wouldn’t lay it on quite as thickly as John Prados, senior research fellow at the National Security Archive did in The Washington Post: “Because of an affair that had already ended, the nation this month lost the services of a highly skilled public servant. The hysterical reaction to the news of then-CIA Director David Petraeus’s liaison with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, has done more to harm national security than the affair itself.”

I’d hate to think that one man’s departure would hurt the CIA’s assassination and coup productivity.

Still, I agree with Prados’s broader point. What happened to Petraeus — and Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton and Larry Craig and John Edwards — was stupid.

Whether you’re a small-government conservative or a liberal libertine, one thing all Americans ought to agree upon is that we’re entitled to privacy in our sex lives.

As long as the sex is consensual, what happens in the bedroom — or the coffee room off the Oval Office or the Minneapolis airport men’s room — is nobody’s business but the two people involved. Or three. Or seven.

Maybe a mongoose. With verifiable consent.

Cheating on your spouse shouldn’t cost you your career. Especially when so many of us do it.
~ from Awaiting a Slut Moment: Everybody Cheats. When Will We Admit It? by Ted Rall ~

I have touched on this topic before. It just strikes me as weird that illicit sexual escapades can bring down powerful leaders, religious icons and celebrities like few other scandals. 

You can exploit others -- financially and/or emotionally -- and that often won't get you dismissed. Your decisions can lead to the deaths of a few or thousands and that's okay. You can subvert democracy, pay off officials, pollute the planet and atmosphere like there is no tomorrow and throw tens of thousands of people out of work -- most of this doesn't cause even a ripple in boardrooms and the halls of government across the land.

But if you fail to keep your zipper zipped or your brassiere on, too often you find yourself in hot water!  Sleep with the wrong person and you may find yourself in the headlines...and unemployed.

Rall points to the study conducted by Shere Hite which indicated that over 70% of married people cheat on their spouses at one time or another.  Personally, I think that figure is a wee bit high, but there is no question in my mind that extramarital affairs are prevalent in our society.

As Rall comments, "When anywhere from a quarter to three-quarters of a population does something, it’s not a moral failing. It’s standard human behavior."

Why is it that we expect governmental and business leaders to live like saints...when the rest of us don't?  Why do we expect them to be Puritans?  More importantly, how can we expect them to be unquestionably chaste when they, like us, grow up in a society that is patently unchaste?

I can think of numerous reasons why I would have liked to have seen David Petraeus removed from office.  Having sexual relations with someone other than his wife ain't one of them!

Mencius - Book 7, Part 1, Chapter 16

Mencius said, 'When Shun was living amid the deep retired mountains, dwelling with the trees and rocks, and wandering among the deer and swine, the difference between him and the rude inhabitants of those remote hills appeared very small. But when he heard a single good word, or saw a single good action, he was like a stream or a river bursting its banks, and flowing out in an irresistible flood.'

~ James Legge translation via nothingistic.org ~

 Go here to read the introductory post to this serialized version of the Works of Mencius.

Transformational Humor

Scott Bradley

I have often made the case for humor as both a means to achieving a bit of transcendence from the insularity of self and as an indication of that transcendence. I was thus pleased to see James Sellmann's contribution ("Transformational Humor in the Zhuangzi") in Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi. He makes the case that a prominent aspect of Zhuangzi's writing style is to expose the humor inherent in the human condition so as to facilitate a loosening of the bonds of conventional thinking that entrap us into fixed and static positions in an ever-changing reality. He quotes Wu Kuang-ming (The Butterfly as Companion) to make this point: "Irony and laughter loosen (chieh) us to such stirrings to the new. To laugh is to see beyond the transitoriness of events; laughing at oneself liberates the self into self-scrutiny. . ."

Irony, Wu goes on to say, is a kind of "double talk" which models and helps to facilitate the "double walk" (lingxing) which is variously translated "walking two roads" or "going both ways". Irony shows us how that nothing is truly reducible to easy, cut and dry, answers. It keeps us on our toes when attempting to 'explain' reality. It keeps us "unfixed".

A classic example of irony is seen in the story of the Greek general who, on the eve of a great battle, asks the Delphic Oracle what the outcome will be. "There will be a great victory," he is told and thus confidently goes on to suffer a great defeat. He failed to understand that victory and defeat depend upon one's point of view; the Oracle could have just as easily said there will be a great defeat and the general could have just as easily understood this to be descriptive of his opponent's outcome. Here, irony teaches us perspectival relativism.

Irony essentially reminds us that life is paradoxical, which is to say that it can only be lived, not understood.

Similarly, if we cannot laugh at ourselves, we are clearly unaware of our own self-inflicted bondage to fixed ideas. To laugh at oneself is to at least be aware of oneself as a bundle of contradictions. Seriousness to a fault makes us a plague to ourselves and to others.

Sellmann believes of laughter that, though "a vehicle to transformation and liberation", and though "one must certainly practice the method of liberation over and over, again and again", "eventually one can let go of the practice . . ." I am not so sure; nor do I think that Zhuangzi would agree. Life is always unfixed and essential chaos, and thus it's always all a wandering, a playing, a laughing. There is never a means that is not also the end. Nor does Zhuangzi ever fail to laugh at his own explanations.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.