Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun.

["Alfred W. Tüting" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

xorxes and pycyn(?),

I must admit that initially, I sided with Hui-tzu (the more
'reasonable'), but I see that Chuang-tzu is much better.
Analyzing their dispute, we cannot cling to mere semantic (at least
not based on the English translation, which BTW doesn't seem to
bad). One has to get the sense expressed in the original version:
Hui-tzu is asking: (BIG5)"?  ¤l?  «D?  ³½¡A?  ¦w?  ª¾³½¤§¼Ö¡S" (zi
fei yu, an zhi yu zhi le?) "You are not a fish, how (can) you know
the fish
being happy? You see, the "how (can)" is similar to the English
version, but the very sense of this rethorical question translates:
1) Everbody knows that there is no means to get knowledge about the
feelings of somebody/something not being yourself (so there's
no way to know about the feelings of fishes unless being a fish
yourself).
2) Will you (Chuang) really tell me you're a fish!!! If not, what
other sources perhaps can you have to get this knowledge! So,
assuming you don't, I *know* (according this logic we both are
sharing!) that you cannot, hence infact do not know.

Now, Chuang-tzu is playful enough to step on Hui-tzu's own platform
(premise - see #1) easily demonstrating that, starting from
this and using the same logic they both are sharing, Hui-tzu infact
deductively cannot *know* what somebody not being Hui-tzu
himself really *knows*. Chuang herby does not really accept Hui-tzu's
premise #1, just wants to play with him - and after all
turns back to present his own platform (premise #2 - see below).
(Maybe, this excursion is bit kind of a piece of juggling too and
not too serious at all: not too obvious from the text always using
?  ª¾ chi1 (=know), Chuang-tzu is mixing up "to know" and "to feel"!
Because there might be a difference between "to know about the
*feelings* (of the fishes)" and "to know about the *knowledge* (of
Chuang about the feelings of fish)).
But then after this playful intermezzo, Chuang turns back to show his
own premise:
2) It is possible to know the feelings (etc.) of something/somebody
outside of yourself, because everything being part of nature i.e.
the 'ten thousand things' ?  ¸U?  ª« (wan wu) around you. Hence, you
yourself also being part of the whole are sharing everything with it.
(A blade of grass falls to the ground, and everything - even  sun and
 moon - is moving along with it). From this philosphical
platform (Chuang-tzu is a Taoist, idealist, maybe subjectivist
?  °ß¤ß½× or ?  °ß§Ú½× whereas Hui-tzu a rationalist/materialist
?  °ß²z?  ½× or
?  °ßª«½×).
These two different platforms each one of them start from, has
nothing to do with different logics rather than philosophies, I'd
say.
But somehow - Chuang, remaining unfazed,  has cut a finer picture
than Hui (maybe, only that the story was told by Chuang himself
as all we know about Hui goes back to Chuang!)
As for the "bridge": you should not say that that is no source of
knowledge. The original just says: ?  §Úª¾¤§*?  ÀÚ¤W*?  ¤] (It was on
the
'Hao' that I knew...). Maybe you're right pointing to the 'event' of
being near/nearer/far to something  important for knowledge.

Considering Chuang's philosophical base, he is not at all arrogant
uttering: "asking me how I could know the fish are happy, you
yourself already knew that I knew, (and at the same time
anyway/therefore?) posing me your question..." (? 
 ¤l?  ¤ê¡u?  ¦¼¦w?  ª¾³½¼Ö¡v?  ¤ª
?  ªÌ¡A?  ¬J?  ¤v?  ª¾§^?  ª¾¤§¦Ó°Ý§Ú...)

co'o mi'e .aulun.