/lit/ - Literature

>>9704056
>advocate for Legalism
>get killed by Qin
Kek. Han Fei is an interesting character. He had a speech impediment and therefore resorted to writing. Now in writing one is once removed from the perspective one takes, which allows one to indirectly advocate for Legalist principles that one cannot speak of. But he remains the same person who was advocating for Legalism, and the inner contradictions resolved itself in his death once he appeared at Qin's court, because advocating for Legalism is self-defeating since he is not the Prince. It is not the wise way to ride the dragon.

>We see the War when it happens (unless you're Jean Baudrillard) but not all the other stuff that has already happened beforehand.

Or alternatively, which is what I got out of the Zhong Yong, we see unity when it happens, but not what happens to achieve it. The absence of war is not the absence of the will to wage war, but the resolution of it. So the Zhong Yong's preface contains statements with the absence of arguments leading up to them, but this does not mean they are self-evident or axiomatic, but rather that there are arguments (and conflicts) that remains unstated. If we read them as conclusions that are consistent with conflicting arguments, the preface can be read as a sort of allegory in terms of rhetoric to a diplomatic solution to a conflict. That the text has multiple authors (and thus interests) lends credence to this theory. Tu Wei Ming rightfully points out that rhetoric is absent in the Zhong Yong and concludes that it's purpose is aesthetic though the aim is to persuade. On the other hand I think this is a clue that we are not supposed to take it as face value. But there are those who will, and perhaps this is necessary for social harmony. So the text has an exoteric and esoteric meaning. Legalism on the other hand brings the esoteric out into the open, which also brings conflict out into space in the form of war.

The phrase "There is nothing more visible than what is hidden and nothing more manifest than what is subtle" is a kind of clue. If it was like a koan, it would read something like "there is nothing more visible than what is hidden and nothing more hidden than what is visible" and so on for the second clause, but the same sentiment is repeated twice which is like highlighting that we should pay attention to this.

The Chinese generally do not like to bring disagreements out into the open (and neither are they warlike). but this does not mean they don't disagree or they don't insist on promoting their national interests. The appearance of unity is an artform unto itself allows one to speak of conflict while at the same time resolving it and satisfying the actors involved. It is essentially diplomacy where the mastery of diplomatic art reaches a point that the presence of conflict disappears such that it doesn't look like diplomacy at all. "One Country, Two Systems" to describe the situation of China and Taiwan is the paradigmatic case.

>>9691878
>Now Confucius was committed to virtue, and speaks favorably about rulers being virtuous, but this is different from saying that they "ought" to be virtuous (literally almost every modern account of Confucius conflates the two). Because to do so is to position virtue above the sovereign.
This is so huge and why Chinese epistemology is so stupendously awesome. It's just on another level: to seek out the answer to a question is itself to always-already be answering that question. There's no choice, no decision-making, in the same way. Sovereignty is always going to be an endgame puzzle for a certain form of thinking (and potentially the very highest). But as you can see - and have helped me to see - the relationship between sovereignty, virtue and ritual is pretty complex.

The relationship between Confucius and Laozi in this sense is interesting to think about, because there's a moment in there somewhere - and you're the guy to ask about it, I'm pretty sure - where the cognitive dump goes *upwards* and becomes part of the Mandate of Heaven, in a sense. Confucius and Laozi are two parts of a process that arguably is designed to resolve the question of divestiture of agency. What Heaven desires and how to act in accordance with it is what drove those kings out to consult with sages time and again. And the sages always had an answer for them, and that reason always, and mysteriously, made sense.

I do love me some Confucian ethics. In a big way. You might enjoy this, if the Chinese are lighting you up. They certainly do it for me. The Great Learning is no joke. Plus, martial arts, you know.

>get a blog dude
>wtf not land related
>no china is relevant go away
Kek. You might have to get one as well tbqh. My time on /lit/ is already winding down, but I'll be back eventually and when I do have a blog I'll shill it here, no worries. But for now let's just enjoy the Fun of draconology. It has been a true delight so far reading your posts.

>>9692089
>Thinking of Blood Meridian in terms of ritual is fascinating. The suspension of all judgement, the suspension even of a character's actions and thoughts (even though they are implied to persist within the page, absent though they haunt it) are the effects of ritualistic violence being ontologically prior, even to life. Even fear of death is absent. It's the dark side of ritual when you neglect your bearings in the world and lose all sense of telos.
This is the shit that was killing me before, in those earlier posts (>>9675436, >>9675504, >>9675558). It's exactly that loss of telos that only the truly insane can actually comport themselves to, the Anton Chigurhs and Judge Holden's. And it is to our own great fortune that we have a McCarthy who *is* magnificently, breathtakingly *sane* enough to write those characters, characters who are still miles ahead of even savants like Brassier.

(cont'd...last one I think.)

Sho' nuff.

This one's good. So is Herbert Fingarette's book on Confucian epistemology. Sample chapters here:

http://faculty.smcm.edu/jwschroeder/Asian_Religions_2015/textdownloads_files/Confucius%20chp1%262.pdf

Michael Puett and Roger Ames are also good with Chinese thought. Most everything translated by Thomas Cleary is interesting. Some of it gets a little crazy, but it's up to you.