Detailed Explanation of The Analects: For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (39)
2006/12/10 12:09:22
子曰：由诲女，知之乎！知之为，知之；不知为，不知；是知也！
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "You! Let me teach you the correct attitude toward knowing or not knowing! To know what you know and to know what you don't know — that is true wisdom."
Qian Mu: The Master said: "You! Let me teach you what counts as knowing. To know what you know, and at the same time to know what you don't know — that is knowing."
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "Zilu, let me tell you what seeking knowledge means: knowing is knowing, not knowing is not knowing — that is true knowing."
Detailed Explanation: The punctuation used by the three above and conventionally is: "由！诲女知之乎！知之为知之，不知为不知，是知也。" The key question is: what does "由" actually refer to? Is it, as commonly assumed, Confucius's disciple "Zilu"? In the chapter "由知、德者，鲜矣！" we already negated the longstanding interpretation of "由" as "Zilu," and the same applies here. On this point, let me now provide a specific analysis. In The Analects, Confucius consistently addresses Zilu with a fixed pattern, which is "由也." For example: "由也好勇过我，无所取材" (You is bolder than I, but has nothing to draw from), "由也，千乘之国，可使治其赋也，不知其仁也" (You could manage the military levies of a state of a thousand chariots, but I don't know about his humaneness), "由也果，於从政乎何有？" (You is decisive — what difficulty would he have in governance?), "由也升堂矣！未入於室也！" (You has ascended to the hall but has not yet entered the inner chamber!), "片言可以折狱者，其由也与！" (The one who could settle a lawsuit with half a word — that would be You!), and so on. Moreover, this grammatical phenomenon is not limited to Zilu; in The Analects, Confucius also consistently uses "回也" to address Yan Hui, such as "贤哉，回也！" (How worthy is Hui!) and "回也，非助我者也！" (Hui is not one who helps me!). Particularly this sentence, which also brings in Zigong: "赐也何敢望回？回也闻一以知十，赐也闻一知二。" (How would Ci dare compare himself to Hui? Hui hears one thing and understands ten; Ci hears one thing and understands two.) From this, it is clear that this is the standard usage in The Analects, and treating "由" as "Zilu" is absolutely a blunder. This ID has now corrected a grammatical error that has persisted for over two thousand years — "由" absolutely cannot be taken as "Zilu." Furthermore, what does the "之" in "知之" actually refer to? The usual translations all gloss over this "之" without translating it. If that were really the case, why doesn't the original text simply say "知为知，不知为不知，是知也"?
Setting aside grammatical issues, the conventional interpretation is equally laughable: Knowing is knowing, not knowing is not knowing, and this is true knowing, this is wisdom? You know what you know and simultaneously know what you don't know, and only then does it count as knowing? If that were really the case, the most knowledgeable and wisest thing would have to be a machine with the following program: it only answers questions about whether it knows or doesn't know, and the answers are limited to two: "know" and "don't know." Then it is strictly programmed to give "know" and "don't know" answers according to a fixed procedure. Interpreting it this way is a classic trick for keeping the people ignorant. One question can expose this trick: knowing that you know — how do you know, and why do you know? Knowing that you don't know — how do you not know, and why don't you know? The decidability of knowing versus not knowing — how is that itself known? If this decidability cannot itself be determined as known or not known, then what do you know or not know? This kind of trick, like the various "Lu model" tricks before, is bastard logic of the same origin and species.
The correct punctuation is: "由诲女，知之乎！知之为，知之；不知为，不知；是知也。" In fact, the "由" and "知" in this chapter both follow from the previous chapter's "民可，使由之；不可，使知之." "由" means to tread upon, to practice — using a more common term, "practice." "诲" means to teach. "女" is a phonetic loan for "汝" (you), referring here to all of humanity in general. "知之乎" — "之" refers back to "由诲女"; "知之" means "to gain wisdom from this," to gain wisdom from what practice teaches you. "为" means "伪" (artifice). What is "伪"? Not innate — human-made. All creation and innovation are human-made; without human action, how can there be creation or innovation? "为" is "由" — it is the real practice of real people. "知之为" — to act according to wisdom, to practice based on wisdom. "知之" — to gain wisdom from this, to gain wisdom from what practicing according to wisdom yields. "之" refers back to the preceding "知之为," and this wisdom, having gone through "知之为" (practicing according to wisdom), differs from the original wisdom gained from "由诲女" (what practice teaches you), and is therefore new wisdom. "为," relative to the earlier "由," is also a further step in practice. "不知为" — not to practice according to wisdom. "是" is a resumptive reference to the above "知之为，知之；不知为，不知," making a judgment and generalization about it, meaning "this is" or "this is precisely."
Under the "Heaven-Earth-Human" structure, the Daoist stance of "non-action" (无为) harbors extreme suspicion toward "human action." What is "non-action"? No human action. Daoism believes there is an innate natural Dao within the "Heaven-Earth-Human" structure, hence the doctrine "Man follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Dao, Dao follows Nature." From this, it hypothesizes that humanity's original state is closest to nature, and therefore one should return to simplicity and authenticity, be like an infant, and eliminate all human artifice and deliberateness — and so forth. Confucianism would never hypothesize any innate natural Dao. Confucianism does not believe in any wisdom detached from reality, does not believe that some innate wisdom exists a priori, and even less believes that once such wisdom is found, everything becomes clear and one can become a sage or immortal. Confucianism only believes that wisdom is human-made, is practical, and comes from practice.
"有为" (Purposeful action) — the fundamental stance of Confucianism — means that everything is based on humanity's real practice. All human wisdom is inseparable from humanity's real practice, and real practice is also inseparable from the synthesis of wisdom. From this, one can see that Confucius and Marx are truly kindred spirits. In the previous chapter, the relationship between "由" (practice) and "知" (wisdom) was emphasized. This chapter is meant to reveal the relationship between these two: "由" (practice) is the foundation of "知" (wisdom) — without "由," there is no "知." But "由" cannot be separated from "知" — only by acting according to "知" (wisdom), by "由" (practicing) and "为" (doing), can there be new "知" (wisdom), can there be creation and innovation. And this is the most fundamental wisdom. Yet this most fundamental wisdom does not come from thin air either — it too comes from humanity's historical practice. Moreover, this process of practice leading to wisdom and wisdom leading to practice is the "易" (Change) — it is the ceaseless continuation of human existence itself.
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
子曰：由诲女，知之乎！知之为，知之；不知为，不知；是知也。
Confucius said: Practice teaches you, and from this comes wisdom! Practice further according to wisdom, and from this comes new wisdom. If you do not further practice according to the wisdom gained from practice, there will be no new wisdom. This is the most fundamental wisdom.
(To be continued)
Plagiarism is strictly prohibited; violators will be prosecuted.
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:31:51
[Anonymous] 袖手旁观
2006-12-10 12:25:57
Haha, this interpretation is interesting.
If the previous chapter was relatively easy to think of, and I had thought along those lines before, this chapter is truly quite enlightening.
On a different note, in Chan MM's "Currency Wars and the RMB Strategy (Part 1)," the statement "The American economy will enter a real, more devastating decline after a year or two of platform consolidation, and this decline will merely be the prelude to an even larger-scale decline" was said three years ago. Is there an update? Of course, long-term strategic viewpoints don't need frequent updating.
=================
That decline was already resolved through the rise of resource commodities and currency depreciation. The critical cycle is in 2019 — that is the most important one. The "even larger-scale decline" referred to this.
But this kind of resolution will only lead to bigger problems.
Also, let me say something blunt here: the reason the US stock market was able to use this resolution method in the short term — China deserves enormous credit for that.
The premise of this ID's original thesis was that the RMB must not move — this was a critical premise. By July 2005, this premise no longer held, so the subsequent resolution through the surge in resource commodities was entirely logical.
But the great cycle of 2019 cannot be resolved. The key question is whether China boards that pirate ship.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:40:20
In July 2005, the title of this ID's post was "The 'July 7th Incident' in China's Currency War!"
But for the US, at least it could catch a short-term breather because of this. The subsequent surge in resource commodities was the beginning of a new round of plundering. The current global stock market rally is the same thing — because China, that big piece of fat meat, has entered the game, and there's new stuff to feast on for a few more years. The wholesale acquisition of state-owned enterprises is a minor matter in this grand context.
But this cannot change the great economic cycle of 2019. Whoever is more tightly bound to that American pirate ship, without an independent strategy of their own — what their ultimate role will be goes without saying.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:42:48
[Anonymous] nn
2006-12-10 12:28:22
Checking in first, greetings, happy weekend.
==========
Happy weekend
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:53:25
[Anonymous] nn
2006-12-10 12:45:16
May I ask the host: will your interpretation of The Analects selectively pick chapters, or will you cover the entire Analects? Thank you
========
The entire thing, of course.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:59:50
[Anonymous] 你的样子
2006-12-10 12:51:58
Re-reading "Currency Wars and the RMB Strategy"
==========
That strategy is useless now, because in July 2005 the RMB was already liberalized. That was the most decisive strategy, but it required great boldness.
Actually, this ID has already explained the logical relationship. July 2005 was a critical turning point for the entire world economy. If China had held firm at that time, everything would not be the way it is now. Of course, for individuals, there's nothing bad about the current situation — there have been plenty of investment opportunities over the past year and a half. This ID has no complaints.
But for the country, if the goal is only to be number two or three, there's nothing wrong with it either — at least there's short-term prosperity.
But if the goal is to be number one, the best opportunity has already been missed. The only option is to wait for the next opportunity. Using this ID's stock terminology, the first-type buy point has passed. Wait for the second-type buy point.
And the premise of this ID's "Currency Wars and the RMB Strategy" was: China must become number one. If everyone thinks being number one is pointless, then those articles are meaningless.
But this ID still believes that China must become number one — deal with it.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:03:13
[Anonymous] nn
2006-12-10 12:54:06
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
2006-12-10 12:40:20
In July 2005, the title of this ID's post was "The 'July 7th Incident' in China's Currency War!"
But for the US, at least it could catch a short-term breather because of this. The subsequent surge in resource commodities was the beginning of a new round of plundering. The current global stock market rally is the same thing — because China, that big piece of fat meat, has entered the game, and there's new stuff to feast on for a few more years. The wholesale acquisition of state-owned enterprises is a minor matter in this grand context.
But this cannot change the great economic cycle of 2019. Whoever is more tightly bound to that American pirate ship, without an independent strategy of their own — what their ultimate role will be goes without saying.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
I especially appreciate this line: "The subsequent surge in resource commodities was the beginning of a new round of plundering."
By the way, may I ask: how does the host view the current correction in LME electrolytic copper? Where is the lowest it might go, or do you not predict but simply wait for the market to show a turning point? Thanks!
==============
Year-end — even the most ferocious bulls need to rest. But the rise in resource commodities is the most direct way to resolve the economic predicament of the US. It's also a grand game of new global redistribution, the same thing as the colonial waves of the 19th and 20th centuries. Until this game is over, nothing can end.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:11:56
[Anonymous] nn
2006-12-10 13:04:51
The premise of this ID's original thesis was that the RMB must not move — this was a critical premise. By July 95, this premise no longer held, so the subsequent resolution through the surge in resource commodities was entirely logical.
===============================
Above, is it July 95 or July 05?
=========
Typo — of course it's July 05.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:14:37
[Anonymous] 暗Night行路
2006-12-10 13:10:31
So this sentence can be interpreted this way.
Ancient texts without punctuation are really misleading.
=========
The ancients had absolutely no difficulty with this. It seems that "由" not referring to Zilu — this kind of issue, ancient people would never have gotten wrong. The reason later generations frequently make mistakes is that they impose usages that only developed later onto the ancients.
This ID's interpretation has nothing to do with punctuation or lack thereof. This ID's premise is: first, there must be no grammatical problems — errors like taking "由" as "Zilu" absolutely cannot happen.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:18:53
[Anonymous] 古代
2006-12-10 13:11:07
Is it related to America's free economy? When currency exceeds commodities, does it create so-called "inflation"? Only through currency regulation can the market develop beneficially. Is the surge in resource commodities a short-term illusion aimed at future economic plundering? It seems like a common tactic of American "funds."
===============
For the US, "inflation" is shared by people all over the world. The US is the country least afraid of "inflation." In other words, once the weapon of "inflation" is deployed, the one least hurt is definitely the US. The US has already used this weapon to defeat Japan and others. The liberalization of the RMB — the biggest problem is that it allows the US to fully deploy this killer weapon.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:20:29
[Anonymous] 淡定
2006-12-10 13:15:42
Personally, I think missing the first buy point in July 05 was not our active choice, and all the changes over the past year and more have simply been our way of going with the flow. Of course, every descendant of Yan and Huang wants their country to be number one, but this also requires the right timing, the right conditions, and the right people. May our government exercise the great wisdom of the Chinese people, endure hardship while building strength, and ultimately reign supreme over the world!
=========
We could have actively chosen. That's exactly why this ID wrote "The 'July 7th Incident' in China's Currency War!"
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:23:02
Announcement
Tomorrow, this ID will publish the sequel to "Currency Wars and the RMB Strategy," analyzing the major economic environment since 2005 and China's possible countermeasures.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 13:32:18
Have to go, see you later.
缠中说禅 2006/12/10 12:21:59
If you have articles to exchange, you can go to the circle this ID created. Quite a few people have already posted articles there. Besides coming to see this ID's work, you can also check out what others have written, and you can post your own articles for mutual exchange.
Method: Click "My Circles" on this ID's homepage, then follow Sina's instructions to proceed.