On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 brvannorden@vassar.edu wrote:
>>What the passage from the Zhuangzi states is that a dao that you can pass on (but which can't be received) is before sky and ground. The problem is to understand what sort of thing both could be passed on and could be before sky and ground. I do not know how to give this a metaphysical reading.
>That's easy! The metaphysical DAO4 can be "passed on" in the sense that one can come to understand it and act in accordance with it, but it is not something that can be "received" like a concrete object of a specific teaching.
I don't see that this is easy: "one can come to understand it and act in accordance with it" is not a sense of "can be passed on" that I know. And I don't know where you get "like a concrete object of a specific teaching".
The issue is, how are chuan2/pass on and shou4/receive being contrasted? Presumably the expectation is that whatever you can chuan2, someone else can shou4. Why can't you when it comes to dao? Giving "dao" the ordinary sense, we have something like the claim that what is taught and what is learned don't match up. It's a reasonable claim that fits nicely with scepticism towards dao constancy. (That's a more obviously a Laoist theme, though as Chris pointed out this passage has something of a Laoist flavour to it and may be an insertion.)
>Now, TIAN1 DI4 is a standard Classical Chinese expression for "the whole world." So to say that the DAO4 exists before and creates "Heaven and Earth" is to say that there is something distinct from the world as we ordinarily experience it that brings into existence that world.
I think reading the bulk of the passage in question as discussing the distinctions marked in language and action is at least plausible. The line that is most trouble for my reading is the one I think you're citing: "wei4 you3 tian1 di4 zi4 gu3 yi3 gu4 cun2", something like: "There was not yet sky-ground (the world), from ancient times it has thereby been securely present." [Zhuangzi 6/29-30.] This does seem to put dao before the world. But it also seems to put ancient times (gu3) before the world. And it doesn't put dao before ancient times. Again I think it makes sense to read this as a claim that the categories of sky and ground are socially constructed. And I think that coheres nicely with much of the discussion in "Qiwulun", which might be arguing that the distinctions according to which we act out are lives are constructed.
>Here's the problem: On Hansen's interpretation, dao's are a product of human invention. Hence, if Hansen's hypothesis were correct, what the Chinese texts SHOULD say, is that humans create dao's. Instead, what the texts DO say is that the DAO4 creates the whole world (which would include humans).
I'm going to use "social practice" as a gloss on "dao". Now, if I say "nature is produced through social practice", does that mean I am committed to the belief that "the whole world (including humans) are created by social practice"? I don't think I am. (I also don't think I'd often say, "Humans create social practice." I might even think it's false.)
Of course my defence of this reading depends a lot on how I read the rest of the Inner Chapters. (I might read it differently -- I'm not sure -- if I were convinced it was a Laoist insertion.) For what it's worth, I think the arguments in "Qiwulun" are incompatible with talk of metaphysical Dao, but I think they do suggest a possibly quite radical constructivism; and I see no reason for Zhuangzi to posit such a metaphysical Dao. (Nor do I think he shows much interest in the cosmic process, a somewhat metaphysical reading of "dao" that seems to be demanded in the _Laozi_.)
DanDate created: 10/28/96 Last modified: 10/28/96 Questions? Contact: Stephen C. Angle