From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun May 28 05:53:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3455 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 12:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 May 2000 12:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 May 2000 12:53:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 4840 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 12:53:14 -0000 Received: from imu.egroups.com (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by iqg.egroups.com with SMTP; 28 May 2000 12:53:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.32] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2000 13:53:14 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 12:53:07 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. Message-ID: <8gr4rj+pmal@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20000527232558.57533.qmail@hotmail.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 3783 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._T=FCting?=" 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)"=80=A0=A0=A4l=80=A0=A0=ABD=80=A0=A0=B3=BD=A1A=80=A0=A0=A6w=80=A0=A0=AA=BE=B3=BD=A4=A7=BC=D6=A1S" (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 =80=A0=A0=AA=BE chi1 (=3Dknow), 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' =80=A0=A0=B8U=80=A0=A0=AA=AB (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 =80=A0=A0=B0=DF=A4=DF=BD=D7 or =80=A0=A0=B0=DF=A7=DA=BD=D7 whereas Hui-tzu a rationalist/materialist =80=A0=A0=B0=DF=B2z=80=A0=A0=BD=D7 or =80=A0=A0=B0=DF=AA=AB=BD=D7). 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: =80=A0=A0=A7=DA=AA=BE=A4=A7*=80=A0=A0=C0=DA=A4W*=80=A0=A0=A4] (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..." (=80=A0 =A0=A4l=80=A0=A0=A4=EA=A1u=80=A0=A0=A6=BC=A6w=80=A0=A0=AA=BE=B3=BD=BC=D6=A1v=80=A0=A0=A4=AA =80=A0=A0=AA=CC=A1A=80=A0=A0=ACJ=80=A0=A0=A4v=80=A0=A0=AA=BE=A7^=80=A0=A0=AA=BE=A4=A7=A6=D3=B0=DD=A7=DA...) co'o mi'e .aulun.