Fancy words

Chinese is unique in that every character has it's own unique meaning and sound.  English uses the same 26 characters to phonetically sound out a word.

Whenever I see characters that I don't understand, one of the following things happens:

1.  I have no clue.

2.  I know what it sounds like, but I have no idea what it means.

3.  I have no idea what is sounds like, but I know what it means.

The Dream of the Red Chamber is describing Qing dynasty aristocrats.  Here's an example of my thought process when I encounter fresh text:

頭上戴著金絲八寶攢珠髻，

On her head she carries gold thread and carries 8 precious jewels something

綰著朝陽五鳳挂珠釵；

Some verb dealing with thread  when five brilliant phoenixes hangs a pearl pin

項上戴著赤金盤螭瓔珞圈；

On top there is a red-gold disk of something insect something something hoop.

裙邊繫著豆綠宮條、雙衡比目玫瑰佩；

On her dress a myriad of bean red palace? strips, a pair of horizontal rose amulet

身上穿著縷金 百蝶穿花大紅洋緞窄褙襖，

On her clothes gold threaded hundreds of butterflies with bright red flowers fine? something something some type of clothing.

外罩五彩刻絲石青銀鼠褂;

Her outside something rainbow stone cut green fox scarf?

下著翡翠撒花洋縐裙。

Underneath something jade-colored flower something something dress?

Here's David Hawkes translation:

Her chignon was enclosed in a circlet of gold filigree and clustered pearls.  it was fastened with a pin embellished with flying phoenixes, from whose beaks pearls were suspended on tiny chains.  Her necklet was of red gold int he form of a coiling dragon.  Her dress had a fitted bodice and was made of dark red silk damask with a pattern of flowers and butterflies in raise gold thread.  her jacked was lined with ermine.  It was a slate-blue stuff with woven insects in coloured silks.  her under-skirt was of a turquoise-coloured imported silk crepe embroidered with flowers  (Cao 91).


Geez, I have to be Tim Gunn to understand this high level of fashion vocabulary!

(He'd tell me "make it work!"    Source)

If you want a visual of who this person is, it's Wang Xifeng (王熙鳳)：

(Source)

I have 117 chapters to go...

Works Cited

Cao, Xueqin, David Hawkes, E, Gao, and John Minford. The Story of the Stone: A Chinese Novel in Five Volumes. London: Penguin, 1973. Print.

The Humanities Trump Absolutists (Part 2)

(Source)

...debate with Christian converter continued...

"If goodness doesn't from God, then where does it come from?"

I don't think some higher being appropriates goodness, like from moral Federal Reserve.

I'm not sure if you believe in the science of heredity, but the scientific reason for altruism derives for the need to pass genetic information.  So your siblings have half your DNA, cousins 1/4, etc.  There's the argument that it saves genetic information.

Mencius believes in 性本善, our nature was originally good.  Here cites the example of a the baby and the well.  Wells in ancient China weren't surrounded by a high barrier, it was literally a deep pit in the ground.  When one sees a baby crawl very close towards the hole, regardless of whether the observer desires to save the baby, we all have the gut reaction to fear the death of the child.  He argues that this gut reaction alone justifies the innate good nature of human beings.

"Yes, there are people who can reach a certain level of morality, but recognizing God brings you to His level of moral salvation."

Ah!  Here's what I find most disturbing:  non-believers are sent straight to Hell, regardless of their actions on Earth.  Confucius and Mencius didn't have Christ to die for their sins, do you expect me to believe that they're going Hell?  God sounds clingy and passive-aggressive.

Let's assume Mencius and Confucius was allowed to pass the pearly gates of Saint Peter.  I still don't believe in heaven and hell.  Let's assume there was some grouchy person who harbored extremely evil and violent thoughts, but never outwardly acted on them.  He goes to heaven, and his version of heaven is acting on those violent thoughts. Through your bible, it's not okay to commit for a finite lifetime, but God will provide an eternity of sinful acts if you're patient for your living life?  That doesn't add up to me.

I believe true moral salvation comes from processing one's experience and thinking critically about how to act with morals and compassion.  Everything else is trivia and propaganda.

"Mind I can get your phone number?  My church plans to have a bible study session."

Sorry, I don't give my personal information to strangers.

I finished my nachos.

The Humanities Trump Absolutists (Part 1)

(My Achilles heel.  Source.)

So I'm innocently eating nachos at a public eating area, and suddenly a religious person attempts to convert me.

I talk to Christian converters if I'm in the mood.  I listened to Christopher Hitchens over Youtube, so I decided debate.  Here's roughly the dialogue:

"So what's your exposure to Christianity?"

I don't like the influence of Christianity on culture because it's a presumed basis for Judeo-Christian culture.  I felt my public school education was heavily influenced by Christian values  (I don't say "under God" for the pledge of allegiance). Once I studied Chinese culture, I saw how religion can manipulate for political gain.

I'm skeptical of societies that base the premise of power and good on some monotheistic being.  Stepping aside from Christianity for a second, the Mandate of Heaven 天命 justifies the power of the emperor, and all of his subjects must "obey" (I use find quotes in my conversations).

Having moral authority can easily leverage political power.  If we look at the initial relationship between the East and West, specifically the 18th century when the industrial revolution begins in the world.  When the British Empire sends Lord McCartney to Emperor Qianlong's court, we see the clash of cultural titans.  McCartney refuses to kowtow because he believes divine authority is King George III, while Qianlong thinks he himself is a divine being.

As time passes, Britain jams its foot into China like a cheap salesman.  The British attempt to claim moral authority by depicting the Chinese as immoral heathens.

Before The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck, Chinese Characteristics by Arthur Smith was the most popular book about China sold to the West.   It's written by a Protestant minister attempting to generalize Chinese culture.  Both books are horrendously biased, racist, and left an indelible impression about Chinese people.

"Yes.  I agree that immoral people use the word of God for immoral gain.  That's why we have Adam and Eve.  Because they ate the forbidden fruit, they've sinned and need to repent.  All of us sinned, so we need to move closer to God again.   Real experiences with God requires the individual to interpret the Bible themselves."

Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens?  He calls himself an "anti-theist" because he's against any form of religion.

I agree with his argument with original sin because it has certain glaring contradictions.  The bible claims that all people have sinned and need to repent, yet the same God has a predestined plan for these beings and expect total subservience, or else said being will receive eternal damnation.  Humans only have a book written by someone else at earliest 100 years after Jesus' death to be the true word of God.  Humans can't even agree what happened yesterday, let alone something 100 years ago.  Why would God want flawed beings to serve Him?

"But it's only through the experience of God that one can be truly good."

So you're saying that only a superior being has absolute moral authority?  And everyone else who isn't divine is completely clueless?  What makes God different from the Emperor of China?

Here's what I think about goodness...

How Do We Make The Humanities Relevant?

Okay, you've heard  the cliché that internet is revolutionary and how everyone's life has changed, blah blah.

The internet is a Catch 22.  Information can easy disseminate, but its  horrendously huge size overloads the typical surfer.  Sometimes I read webpage after webpage, only to realize I don't remember anything.

So far the humanities was built from mostly rich or high status people.  Most academic work require similar professionals who painstakingly evaluate the thoughts another human being.

People arguing against the humanities say the results of this process are irrelevant to the present.  It's old, snobby, and too high-brow for the average person.  Who has time to go the library to borrow paper when you can download?  Humanities journals cost thousands of dollars to subscribe annually, Netflix is only $8 dollars a month.

Those in history who had access to this material were either filthy rich, or cloistered within a scholarly community.

People are more willing to fund STEM related degrees because STEM can demonstrate it's relevance to society.  A person with a STEM degree can quantify and solve society's utilitarian problems.

But modern culture is insufficient to satisfy the present moral needs of the individual.  It can't express death because its still progressing forward.  The general public wants a predictable sitcom.  Harry Potter needs children.

Unlike a blogpost or a movie, the humanities wants to express human beings before they disappear.  I don't literally mean an act of death, but all the humanities subjects recognize that the human must die.  Documenting material accounts for their existence.

Sadly modern academia fortresses the wealth of the humanities away from the general public.   Physical libraries only hold books that it assumes a certain number will read.  Public education only wants to follow standardized tests and government curricula, students don't have time to learn.

How Do We Make The Humanities Relevant?

I don't think a large, accessible, open source institution exists yet, but the internet might be the start to an answer.

Institutions that traditionally hold knowledge are slowly eroding in legitimacy. Resources like the links on UnCollege are building communities that study without professional instruction.  Of course, internet self-study isn't the silver bullet.  It can't provide the instant reaction of another human being.

I dream that 10-20 years from now traditional public education as we know it will disappear. We'll have so much Youtube videos that any person interested in any subject can watch a lecture.  We would completely erase the neurotic need to subdivide students by age, and again by subject, and then again by grades.  Active students create their own projects, choose their own mentors/communities, work with their own style.  Because isn't that what happens when they leave school anyways?

I end by repeating this open ended question:

How Do We Make The Humanities Relevant?
Comment to conversate!

First Impressions

The Red Chamber Chapter 3

From the strange netherworld of talking rocks, we finally reach the setting of the main plot with the Rongguo mansion.  My favorite character in the story Lin Daiyu meets everyone in the family, I assume the first time.



(This photo is the 2010 remake of The Dream of the Red Chamber)

The  2010 remake is eye candy.  When I found it, I realized it was better than my imagination.  Here's essentially the video of the 3rd chapter.  Even if you don't know Chinese, body language tells you everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tanlyBZoVRQ

Reading the book the second time, new details about the beginning that gave me chills.  But let's stick with Lin Daiyu for a moment.

Here's a teenage girl at the prime of her youth who just lost her mother.  Her father just sent her to her maternal family to be taken care of. Her maternal family is one of the most powerful people in China,  She has to quickly shift from her personal problems and fit in because she's an outsider.

First impressions are like a facebook picture, it only gives you a shell.  But once we crack the shell and see more of the individual, we can't fully determine the goodness of the other person.

I make terrible first impressions.  In the beginning I would introduce myself with the wrong name.  I'm an introverted person.  It takes all of my effort to not choke on my own saliva or defecate in my own pants.  But once I tell myself that the stakes aren't high, and most of the time other people's judgment doesn't matter, I've gotten better about it.

When I first read this scene, I thought Daiyu would feel at ease with rich family wanting to ease the pain of death.  But I didn't consider her status before entering the mansion.  Other than familial obligations between the Rongguo estate and Lin Daiyu, Daiyu is completely alone.  She doesn't know if she can receive unconditional love like what her parents provide her.  She has no idea what these new people value.

Before stepping into a room full of new people, everyone is trying to weigh and calculate value of each other.  If one is going with trustworthy companions, one feels safer in this setting because their reactions can give more clues and details about strangers.  Then again, your certainty could be dead wrong.

The only thing you can do is guess.

 

 

Are We Average?

Chapter 2  The Dream of the Red Chamber

When Yu Cun and his friend talk about the Ning and Rongguo mansions, they discuss the high birth of the founders of that family and how unique cirumstances place them high in society's ranks.

Baoyu's father also hires a monk to display objects and asks the baby Baoyu to choose what he prefers.  Instead of the scholars brush or money, Baoyu chooses women's accessories like makeup and jewelry.  Baoyu's father assumes Baoyu will chase women and be a wastrel in the future.

Yu Cun then discusses how ethers of good and evil concentrate in certain areas, and people who possess extremes of ether has great power to do good or evil while everyone else remains "average" in their respective places.

Christopher Hitchens points out that the Christian concept of God having a unique plan for the individual is ludicrous when one tries to reconciles original sin.  If humans are faulty, why would God entrust the individual to serve Him?  And if humans are fallible, how could the individual interpret or understand the doings of God?  Hitchens argues that "uniqueness" through perfecting God's vision is an excuse for an individual to feel self-entitlement.

Hitchens tells us recognition our averageness and insignificance puts us in awe in relation to the grand scheme of the universe.  He tells us to look at images from the Hubble Telescope and realize that the universe is unique for what it is.

The quintessential breeding ground for average is public schools, especially high school.  There's standard behavior codes and curriculum that everyone must follow.  I still remember the those drab grey "guidelines" manuals.  You paradoxically have to find some way to be unique for college in this environment!  If you think you're special then you're obsessed with average.

Average is a relative and ambiguous term, like conservative and liberal.  You can't average something without looking at everyone else, but who cares what other people think?  Mark Twain said it best:  everyone has a story to tell.  Uniqueness is the average.

Comment to conversate!