Yesterday I was reading this note in Sam Crane's site: French Sinological Food Fight: Thoughts on Politics and Writing. If you link to the article mentioned there you'll find this sentences:


In 1992 Jullien tackled another grandiose philosophical topic in The Propensity of Things: Towards a History of Efficacy in China. The character Shi is notoriously ambiguous—dictionary definitions include ‘power, influence, authority, strength; aspect, circumstances, conditions’—but Jullien’s interpretation is not made any easier by his translating it as ‘propensity’, a term he borrows, tellingly, from Leibniz. The following year, his Figures of Immanence offered ‘a philosophical reading of the I-Ching’, ‘the strangest of all strange books’. Once again, Chinese immanence is pitted against Western transcendence, and wins the match. The Book of Changes, Jullien claims, is in sharp contrast to European thinking because it creates an understanding of the world without recourse to mystery or abstraction, whereas European thought is focused on being, or on God.

Now, I tried to find that particular book in English or Spanish but it hasn't been translated. I can read some French but nowhere near what's needed to read a philosophical work...

I love the title and the use of the word, "immanence". It has a certain ring to it that sounds very truthful. Coming from the Latin, we have "inmanencia" in Spanish. It sounds just as good.

The actual debate is not that enjoyable but it was bound to happen. China itself is increasingly drawing a lot of attention as an international power and all that relates to its history and philosophy will become common fodder for debate and comparisons. Up until a few years ago, China was the "exotic" country across the seas, with strange and evoking customs, history and philosophy and only very few in comparison would take up serious study of those. Well, IMO that's coming to an abrupt end and not a moment too soon.

L

Francois Julien's book has been translated into English. You can read about it here. However, just because it's in English doesn't mean it's understandable to an English-speaker. At least I haven't had much luck with it, but I know Stephen Karcher lists it in one of his recent bibliographies (not sure which book) as a source. Go figure.

lindsay said:

Francois Julien's book has been translated into English. You can read about it here. However, just because it's in English doesn't mean it's understandable to an English-speaker. At least I haven't had much luck with it, but I know Stephen Karcher lists it in one of his recent bibliographies (not sure which book) as a source. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't think that is the book I'm talking about. Jullien has several books translated into Engligh but not this one, yet: "Figures de l'immanence: Pour une lecture philosophique du Yi king, le classique du changement"

Time to brush my French, I guess...

L

You're quite right, Luis. I misread your post. It's quite clear from the quote that Julien wrote a later book specifically about the Yi. I guess we'll all have to wait for that one. Perhaps it would be quicker to learn French. It looks like Julien's Yi book was published in France in 1993, so perhaps it's not exactly a hot item in the international book market. I think I heard an Icelandic translation may come out next year...

Two weeks ago I came across something which fascinated me a lot. It came at a moment when I needed it myself, but it was also interesting in regard to the Yi, and to Chinese thinking in general.

I read some time long ago, that several people who had studied Chinese culture or had contact with it in other ways, said, that in China no philosophical thought could ever come about. The Chinese were too practical, too close to earthly things, to ever conceive of something really spiritual. I could see their point, but at the same time it made no sense at all. But I could not explain why not.

I think this passage explains.
In Zhuang Zi is a passage about Hui, who wants to go to the prince of Wei and asks for advice.

The ZenFrog

Zhong Ni replied:
“Unify your frame of mind. Give up listening with your ears, but listen with your heart. Give up listening with your heart, but listen with the vital essence of your spirit! Listening stops at the ears. The heart stops at making calculations. In the essence of the spirit is openness that’s waiting to receive all things. Pondering Dao accumulates more openness. In that openness is the fasting of the heart.”

Click to expand...

Waiting to receive all things. It sounds very simple. As if he uses this word only to describe "everything". But I think it is very literal. "Things" as opposed to thoughts, concepts, feelings, everything which involves ears or heart.
The essence of the spirit is where nothing reacts, nothing acts, there is only this essence, Qi.

'Things' are life itself. The things which happen, every day, among them many things you hardly think about. Things you take for granted or which are inevitable, things which shape the (your) world.

Philosophy goes a long way, one can reach high with it. But not to the essence. Every time it falls short of that. I think Yi goes farther than philosophy, it goes to 'things' and to the essence. That is why it looks so practical, talks about daily matters, is down-to-earth and gives plain and simple advice. Plain and simple goes much farther than any philosophy can reach.

LiSe

Amen.

Well, I think writing about the shortcomings of "philosophy" is a little like writing about the shortcomings of "history" or "mathematics" or "science" or "religion". Is it really possible to say anything meaningful on that level of abstraction? When you say, "I hate mathematics", does that mean you never count your change at the store, or balance your checkbook, or count the days until Christmas? When you say, "Philosophy doesn't know everything about life," who said it did? Do you mean it's a waste of time to think about how to live a good life, or treat other people fairly, or make just laws, or understand how the universe works? All that (and a lot more) is philosophy.

True enough, a lot of academic philosophy is abstruse and hard to apply to practical affairs. But it is worth remembering that one of the most famous philosophical arguments in ancient China revolved around Gongsun Longzi's famous assertion that, "a white horse is not a horse". This sort of academic philosophy is very much like some forms of Western (Greek) philosophy, and isn't anything like what most people think Chinese philosophy is about. This argument has to do with language, and using language to say truthful things.

My own feeling is that the problem is not philosophy, the problem really is language. We can say so many things that have no palpable counterpart in the world. We can zip up and down the ladder of abstraction until we are in the mud or above the clouds. I'm not ready to give up philosophy (for very practical reasons), but I know I am very careless about the way I use words. Perhaps we should start a movement for the "rectification of names," a powerful ancient Chinese idea. There are so many unabashed liars and spin-artists these days - many in high government office - you can't believe anything you hear and only half of what you say.

Lindsay

Have been searching in my post where I was against philosophy, but I could not find it. There are things many people expect from it, which it will not do for you. But everything has things it cannot do. Try to comfort a child with mathematics, or find the illness of your cat with history, or transport a ton with a pram. That does not mean I am 'against' mathematics, history or prams.

I also expected (or at least tried) to find the meaning of life with the help of philosophy, and it is not that dumb to try it. What else is there, if you happen to have the kind of mind which searches in a philosphical way. Until I discovered that it will not do that.

LiSe

I once philosophically debated with a friend whether or not blind people could see, for three straight hours. We'd have been better off just asking a blind person. But given the argumentative nature of philosophers, we probably would have debated the matter even with him.

I like philosophy and philosophers. I shared a house with an old Nietzsche and Heidegger philosopher for awhile, who was always quoting interesting sayings. He thought my Yijing interests were akin to fairy tales. One night, in a drunken rage, he beat down my bedroom door because I refused to engage in his philosophical ramblings. My dad was sick and dying, so I wasn't in the mood to argue. His philosophy apparently was devoid of compassion.