Hegel/Zhuangzi & co. (I conclude)

Just like I did after my first term BA Philosophy in Manchester, 17 years old. All that matters is what I believe. (Intuitively I knew this, without bothering to stop and observe that Descartes too immediately moved on to God.)

Anyway here I am again. HAVE I LEARNT NOTHING? OR HAD I ALREADY LEARNT EVERYTHING? Again and again I think again the thoughts of that 17 year old BA Philosophy student. Might not be a bad thing. Might be important to know it though. I know it now as I didn’t know it then. So I have learnt something, rather I am in possession of another knowledge. Somehow the nothing is stronger now. In any case, did I know myself then as “that 17 year old student of philosophy”? Never! Did I think it? Never! Do I know myself now as 46 year old TEACHER of philosophy? As a charlatan. I don’t know if I know myself as that. I think it.

I know I gotta pay the bills. I didn’t know that as that 17 year old student of philosophy.

My philosophy: free to believe; got to pay the bills.

Chuang Tzu. (8) The sage

The sage will not speak of what is beyond the boundaries of the universe – though he will not deny it either. What is within the universe, he says something about but does not pronounce upon. Concerning the record of the past actions of the kings in the Spring and Autumn Annals, the sage discusses but does not judge. When something is divided, something is not divided; when there is disagreement there are things not disagreed about.

There is speaking as such, and this belongs to the universe. So too does the speaking of the sage. You can speak as a sage in the universe or as an – not as a sage.

This is about how the sage speaks.

The sage does not speak about God and his speaking does not pronounce upon things or people. But he says something and engages in discussion about it.

A point of disagreement is a point of divergence. What was before the point of divergence? That was and is the substance of agreement; it constitutes still the substance of the now diverging parts.

Chuang Tzu. (7) The great Tao

The great Tao has no beginning, and words have changed their meaning from the beginning, but because of the idea of a ‘this is’ there came to be limitations. I want to say something about these limitations. There is right and left, relationships and their consequences, divisions and disagreements, emulations and contentions. These are known as the Eight Virtues.

The thought “this is the great Tao” makes ‘Tao’ one object among objects, a word among words, subject to change – a beginning and time. But the “great Tao has no beginning”. Such are the limitations of language.

Yet language and limitation belong to the Tao. What doesn’t? On that basis we can speak about the Tao; it’s not wrong; it’s OK.

The author explains that he is speaking in limitations. They are the limitations of speaking of the great Tao; they are the limitations of speaking the great Tao, chosen and spoken by the author, Chuang Tzu.

We are limited to and/or by: right and left; to/by relationships and their consequences; to/by divisions and disagreements; to/by emulations and contentions.

Chuang Tzu. (6) I have already spoken

As all life is one, what need is there for words? Yet I have just said all life is one, so I have already spoken, haven’t I? One plus one equals two, two plus one equals three. To go on from there would take us beyond the understanding of even a skilled accountant, let alone the ordinary people. If going from ‘no-thing’ to ‘some-thing’ we get to three, just think how much further we would go if we went from ‘some-thing’ to something!

Don’t even start, let’s just stay put.

This speech of mine, of “one”… it is not from a place which could be another one. It’s not seperate to it. It’s not two or three of which I speak, which are the domains of accountants – though these also belong to one. My speech is of the one. It must be: I have spoken.

All life is one. As such, one plus one equals one. The same goes for two plus one. It’s all one in the end. This is beyond the understanding of the accountant, the scope of number. Really, there is only “one”, which is some-thing – all the numbers at once.

And what if there’s another one (something) to add to this one; what if there are numerous ‘uni-verses’? Still there is one.

I won’t visit these ‘uni-verses’. It is better to stay in the uni-verse where I am, where I have spoken, where my speech belongs. It is not wrong to do so, it’s OK.

Chuang Tzu. (5) Heaven and Earth and I

Heaven and Earth and I were born at the same time, and all life and I are one.

—

“Against” the infinite – which is – is becoming (being born). We which become are one “against” or “under” the infinite. Even heaven (sky) is one of us, even the heaven (sky)… the image of the infinite, the image or expanse by which we for an instant may perceive the infinite.

Chuang Tzu. (4) Under Heaven

Under Heaven there is nothing greater than the tip of a hair, but Mount Tai is smaller; there is no one older than a dead child, yet Peng Tsui died young.

—

Even the smallest thing is considered great – greatest – under heaven, that is against the infinite, the boundless. In this equality of finite things under the infinite there is an inversion, such that a great mountain appears smaller. This perception under the auspices of equality makes the small big and the big small.

Furthermore this heaven (- or horizon; this image of infinity – or boundlessness), which in its equalising makes the small bigger and the big smaller, stands over or envelops us as death. That is to say, our equality in life is seen in death. There is no great or small – or age – in death: it draws over us without respect of status. So with life. There is life – and there is death. There is death – and there is life.

Chuang Tzu. (3) I do not know whether

I have just made a statement, yet I do not know whether what I said has been real in what I said or not really said.

Does the truth or reality of words consist in the words or in something external to those words, which they indicate and not really say?

Is a word true? – or does it (merely) indicate what is true/real, beyond/outside itself?

Is that question the answer? And that question…? And…?

And is Chuang Tzu’s not knowing whether not also the truth?

A word is not true; it indicates to truth – or it doesn’t, if you see what I am indicating to.

Chuang Tzu. (2) There is the beginning

There is the beginning; yet there is not as yet any beginning of the beginning; there is not as yet beginning not to be a beginning of the beginning. There is what is, and there is what is not, and it is not easy to say whether what is, is not; or whether what is, is.

There is not as yet any beginning of the beginning…. Good joke! There is only beginning.

And there is not as yet a non-beginning…. Good joke!

There is only beginning.

What there is, is begun; what is begun, is.

What can be said as to what is about that what is not? Does what is not “exist potentially”? And/or, does it exist as imaginable? Or, does it exist as an impossibility? In each case, are we not saying that it does not exist? Th question is, is it not?

On the other hand, what can be said as to what is about that which is? How do we describe it?…. That it is like something else? Or shares qualities which exist in other things? What then are we saying about it? There can be nothing said about it but what it has been named as, and all descriptions or definitions are relations of names of things, and that is all there is to say.

I have just made a statement…

Chuang Tzu. (1) Something to say

Now, I have something to say. Do I know whether this is in the same sort of category as what is said by others? I don’t know. At one level, what I say is not the same. At another level, it most definitely is, and there is no difference between what I say and what others say. Whatever the case, let me try and tell you what I mean.

I have something to say. Really? Not that there is or isn’t something to say, perhaps – really, it is about “I”. Something… distinctive or unique to my person to say which is not as what is said by others? Or is what comes simply (and not simply) speech which is like waves on the surface of the ocean? I’m thinking not waves about waves breaking in, more the rolling undulations at the surface of that vast depth which is the Atlantic. What do these waves express about the ocean? They have something to say. Such is speech: I don’t know whether to ascribe these words to myself as uniquely mine, or whether they simply arise in my body as an audible manifestation of something like the ocean in which we are, in which sense there is no difference between what I say and what others say.

The words which each says are not his own, they are everyone’s. Meaning is a matter of timing, of what following what; a following.

There is the beginning;…