Detailed Explanation of the Lunyu: For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (32)
2006/11/19 12:12:30
The Master said: "Dispositions in their appearances, are near; practices in their appearances, are far-reaching."
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "Human natures are originally similar, but due to different habits, they become far apart."
Qian Mu: The Master said: "People's innate natures are similar; it is through habits that they grow apart."
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "Human nature is inherently similar; customs make it distant."
Kang Youwei: Later generations have said much about human nature. Shi Shuo held that nature contains both good and evil — nurturing the good nature causes goodness to grow, nurturing the evil nature causes evil to grow. Disciples like Mizi Jian, Qidiao Kai, and Gongsun Nizi all said nature contains both good and evil. Mencius said nature is good; Xunzi said nature is evil; Gaozi said nature is neither good nor bad; Yangzi said good and evil are mixed — all were mired in discussing good and evil. Confucius, however, did not speak of good or evil, but only of near and far.
Detailed Explanation: The conventional punctuation is "xìng xiāngjìn yě; xí xiāngyuǎn yě" (natures are similar; habits make them different). Under this punctuation, the first three interpreters' explanations are largely alike, but none is as comprehensive as Kang Youwei's. The most important point in Kang's interpretation is his observation that nature should not be mired in good and evil, and that this chapter's emphasis lies in the two characters "near" and "far." What is "nature" (xìng)? The Jishi and Huang Shu state: "Nature is what people are endowed with at birth" — that is, nature is innate and a priori. The Jishi and Huang Shu further explain that all people receive the qi of heaven and earth at birth; though there may be differences in thickness and thinness, all share the same endowment of qi, hence they are said to be "similar." In other words, this a priori foundation is identified as "the qi of heaven and earth."
This kind of explanation inevitably faces the following difficulty: are chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits not also endowed with the qi of heaven and earth at birth? Obviously, within the above explanatory framework, the answer is affirmative. Then, following the same logic, human nature and the nature of chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits would also be "similar." If this interpretation holds, its greatest contribution would be the immediate ability to explain why so many people on the street so easily become like chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits — is it because human nature and animal nature are inherently similar? More seriously, even if one acknowledges a priori human animality, by the same logic, animal nature and the physical nature of stones and rubble would also be similarly "near." Thus, so-called human nature could only be reduced to physical nature. Any special discussion of a priori human nature would be meaningless — human nature is just physical nature, so why bother with the human part?
Yet discussing non-human nature a priori also faces difficulties: if humans have no nature, what makes a human? If humans are similar to physical nature, how do we distinguish humans as humans? How are humans different from things? In fact, from an a priori perspective, whether affirming or denying anything, difficulties arise. Among those who think they can escape difficulties from the negative angle, perhaps the most laughable is Popper, who congratulated himself on supposedly completely defeating Marx with his so-called "falsification principle." In this ID's view, it's not worth a glance. Falsification and verification are actually two sides of the same coin. Any activity premised on proof has an a priori premise: the existence of provability. Correspondingly, when a proposition is falsified, it merely proves that within the set of propositions, the correct proposition is contained in the complement of the falsified proposition. Popper's so-called "falsification principle" is logically equivalent to a priori assumption of the existence of a provable set of propositions and the a priori assumption that the correct proposition lies within this provable set. Moreover, following the "falsification principle," the same difficult question arises — the falsifiability of the "falsification principle" itself. When Popper treated so-called falsifiability as a scientific principle, the scientific status of his own theory was thereby shaken.
Any a priori logic inevitably faces such difficulties. Confucius, like Marx, rejected all a priori principles, including all disguised tricks like Popper's. Without understanding this, it is fundamentally impossible to understand the so-called "natures are similar, habits make them different." The interpretations of the four scholars above and all conventional explanations are wrong — the root cause is precisely this. In reality, this chapter follows from the preceding chapters. "Do not worry" — without rank-order; "worry" gains its rank-order through the absence of rank-order of "do not worry." And the reason "worry's" rank-order has its rank-order is not based on any a priori or innate premise. "Do not worry" is not the a priori or innate premise of "worry" — "do not worry" is merely the stage upon which "worry" emerges. Existence necessarily has its "worry." "Do not worry" does not exist, nor is it a theoretical hypothesis — otherwise it would exist theoretically and would no longer be "do not worry." "Do not worry" is not a premise; the premise of "worry" can only be the present reality, that is, "worry" itself.
The correct punctuation should be: The Master said: "xìng xiāng, jìn yě; xí xiāng, yuǎn yě" — "Dispositions in their appearances, are near; practices in their appearances, are far-reaching." "Xiāng" (相, appearance), in the departing tone, has its rank-order, and correspondingly, there are the appearances manifested by its rank-order — apart from appearances, one cannot seek an abstract, a priori rank-order. "Near" (近) means to cling and attach. When an appearance is established, it must cling to its disposition — this can be called "disposition" (xìng)? "Xìng" (性, disposition/nature) — the heart/mind gives birth; the mind grasps "worry" as "do not worry," giving birth, and then uses "disposition" to "disposition-ize" "dispositional appearances" — therefore it is "near," giving birth to clinging attachment. All theories that theorize for the sake of theorizing cannot escape this "xìng xiāng jìn" (dispositional appearances being near/clinging). As long as, as Marx pointed out, philosophers and the like continue to take interpreting the world as their mission, this vicious cycle of "dispositional appearances being near" will go on endlessly. The world is not there to be interpreted; the world is there to be changed — Marx said this, and Confucius said it too. "Worry" gains its rank-order through the absence of rank-order of "do not worry," and practice at different rank-orders constitutes humanity's transformation of the world, and only thus can the world of "people not knowing" become the world of "people not being resentful."
What is "xí xiāng" (practice-appearance)? It is exactly what was said at the beginning of the Lunyu: "Learn and practice it from time to time." "Xiāng" (appearance) — because "having" worries about its "worry," it manifests its "appearance." What humans can "learn" and "understand" are only the various "appearances" at different rank-orders. Beyond "appearances," there is no so-called innate, a priori "nature" behind them. To "practice" (xí) what appears — to "learn" its "appearance" — is not about conjuring up various so-called "theories," but about "practice." The fundamental purpose of "practice" is to change the world — to "un-appear" the current "appearance" and reveal a new "appearance" — to accord with heaven's timing and receive heaven's timing; to accord with earth's advantage and receive earth's advantage; to accord with people's harmony and receive people's harmony. "Far" (yuǎn) — profound, deep. What is truly profound and deep is "practice" — praxis, transformation — not the wailing and deceptions of bookworms.
However, it must be pointed out that this does not deny the value of any theory's existence — on the contrary, it affirms the value of all theories' existence. Theory, through the "do not worry" of having no value, reveals its value; the value of theory gains its value through theory's valuelessness. And the "do not worry" of theory's valuelessness clings to reality's "worry." Theory thereby manifests different rank-orders through this clinging, and the rank-order of theory clings to the rank-order of reality. But if this clinging were a one-to-one logical relationship, it would not be clinging. So-called reality cannot be separated from a certain theoretical perspective's illumination. To absolutize reality, to turn reality into some a priori, innate premise, is equally laughable. If reality were truly an a priori, innate premise, how could reality ever change? Theories of different rank-orders can appear within reality of the same rank-order and manifest their rank-orders; conversely, using theories of the same rank-order, one can conjure realities of different rank-orders and manifest their rank-orders. And this is what it means for theory's "do not worry" to cling to reality's "worry" — this is what it means for theory's rank-order to cling to reality's rank-order. Only when one understands this can one truly understand what clinging means, what "xìng xiāng jìn yě" means.
Marx said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." The Master said: "Dispositions in their appearances, are near; practices in their appearances, are far-reaching." Two great souls collide magnificently once again in this chapter.
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
The Master said: Dispositions in their appearances, are near; practices in their appearances, are far-reaching.
Confucius said: To dispositionally grasp dispositional appearances — that is clinging! To practically practice upon appearances — that is profound!
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibit plagiarism, violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/11/19 12:30:46
The weather in Beijing is bad right now — all gray and hazy. Yesterday I discovered a Shaanxi "China Time-Honored Brand" restaurant that just opened nearby. This ID is going to check it out. Only after eating well can I properly favor Old Man Confucius, stocks, and music.
Suddenly decided — tomorrow I'll write about stocks, titled "Investing Is Like Choosing a Paramour."
Everyone eat well. This ID is off to find food.
缠中说禅 2006/11/20 12:12:38
[Anonymous] xof_fox
2006-11-19 23:19:58
Host, by the way, I don't understand computers. I don't understand why your music player images all have COOKIES. I don't even know what COOKIES are — are they detectors? Could they crawl into my blog?
=================
Sorry, I'm not very clear about that. For this ID, computers are like men — I only use them, I don't study them.
缠中说禅 2006/11/19 12:23:34
Old Man Confucius will continue to be favored, but recently I want to steal some pleasure and intersperse some writing about stocks. Whether Old Man Confucius has an opinion or not, he doesn't get to have an opinion — this ID has decided.