tang dynasty times

The Centrality of Central Asia

-- for Paul

I wonder how many of you recall my post on Tyrian purple? I ended it with a question-- which I will copy here:

Something has been bothering me about the way the silk road is sometimes held up as a symbol of something worth emulating for today's times. We see, for example, scholars in Europe (UNESCO scholars) nostalgically discussing silk road exchanges as a "two way street" where, perhaps in contrast to monoculturalization or super-power monologues of today, silk road influence functioned more along the lines like true dialogue. (And, how much of this is being romanticized is not really the point as the interesting thing is not the historical accuracy, but rather what contemporary phenomenon it is being contrasted with).

In history books as well, there is a stress on the manner in which trade led the way for these exchanges. And, sometimes when I read, while I feel that there is an implied contrast at how things occur in today's world, I am left with questions.

Aren't international exchanges even today based on trade? Or has the financial world changed to such an extent that true two-way trade doesn't really exist any longer? But, we know that huge trade imbalances existed during Roman times. Pliny (I seem to recall) took pains to complain about Roman trade deficits with India. Purple silk was banned in part for this reason in ancient Rome (being reserved for the emperor). But, if it is not contemporary trade imbalances, what then is being implied?

Last month, Sam Crane had a post over at his place called Finance is Immoral, in which he wrote:

Decades ago, "finance" was generally understood as financing something other than finance itself; that is, stocks and bonds and money were tied to the production and circulation of goods and services, which were for the most part tangible, or "real" in economic parlance.  Beginning with at least the oil crisis of the 1970s, finance has been transformed, now stunningly overshadowing the "real" economy.   Left academics have coined the term "Financialization" to get at these changes.  How big has finance become?  That is a difficult question but think about this kind of statement (from the above linked Wikipedia page):

Thus, [in 2006] derivatives trading – mostly futures contracts on interest rates, foreign currencies, Treasury bonds, etc had reached a level of $1,200 trillion, $1.2 quadrillion, a year. By comparison, U.S. GDP in 2006 was $12.456 trillion.

     Indeed, this week "trillion" has become a common reference.  How big is the market in credit default swaps?  We hear reports in the tens of trillions.  Government action valued in the hundreds of billions seems puny by comparison.  Welcome to the world of financialization.

Sam asks, what would Mencius think? I think it's a good question.

**

I have finally gotten my hands on a book I've been wanting to read for several months now by Andre Gunder Frank, called The Centrality of Central Asia. The book remains an important work on both Central Asian history and on what is the more or less neglected field of "global history." The more I read about his life and his work, the more fascinated I become with Frank and this particular book is short but has all kinds of really interesting insights. And, being associated with the UNESCO scholars, he was for a time involved in UNESCO'S Silk Road Project.

One of Frank's main aims in the book is to bring out the way in which "trade both preceded and exceeded diplomacy;" so that the term "international trade" is probably unfortunate since it implies that international trade came into existence after nations did-- as some kind of trans-"national" trade. Frank says however, that in fact, ancient peoples-- with a few notable exceptions-- were organized along tribal loyalties with various shifting alliances which were not necessarily based on territory. And that even if the tribal groupings became organized within a larger empire, that people for the most part probably continued to associate along these more locally -based groupings. 

(Perhaps an ancient times a man from the Kingdom of Shu would in fact have considered himself not as a Chinese but a man from Shu? But in any case in Central Asia today, it is probably true that people identify themselves by their ethnic association rather than by their national/territorial identity).

Based on these smaller groupings, Frank says, people actively traded with one another, so that kingdoms, empires and nomadic groups (ethic associations) were much more symbiotic with each other than is apparent by reading modern history books. This is part of Frank's world system thesis (500 years or 5000?). And, it's true that it is always awe-inspiring to read about the way luxery items were traded up and down the silk road or around the Mediterrean, for example. Silks, horses, dyes, teas, slaves (particularly on the Western side), jade, pigments... and with these items came philosophies and religions. The amazingly speedy spread Islam in particular is associated with trade, but so too was Buddhism.

It almost seems ironic to be harkening back to this time so far back in history for its robust international trade and cosmopolitanism in our own age of globalization. If Frank is correct, humankind has been closely linked (symbiotically in some cases) for some 5000 years. Parag Khanna too holds up the silk road as one exemplery model for cosmopolitanism. He contrasts this with the strategic rivalry and international competition represented by the infamous Great Game, asking, what it's going to be for us in the future-- the silk road or another Great Game?

Frank gives numerous examples of the way the ancient civilazations were linked and the manner in which events during certain periods would have a ripple affect across the map. Here he quotes Beckwith on the Tang:

It is a curious fact that, unlike the proceeding and following centuries, the middle of the seventh and eighth centuries--specifically the period 742-755-- saw fundamental changes, usually signalled by successful political revolts, in every Eurasian empire. Most famous among them are the Carolignian, Abbasid, Uighur, Turkik, and the anti-Tang rebellions, each of which is rightly considered a watershed in the respective national histories. Significantly, they all seem to  have been intimately connected with Central Eurasia (1987)

And this leads to Frank's main point (as suggested by the title of the book) which is Central Asia has has a longtime central role in the history of the world, and that it remains--thanks to the massive amounts of oil and natural gas discovered there-- strategically key. Indeed, it sometimes feels as if all roads truly lead back to Oxiana.

So, these topics remain on my mind, and I still am not exactly sure how to approach them:
silk road trade versus contemporaray finance
silk road cosmopolitanism versus contemporary globalization
silk road international relations versus the Great Game

The Centrality of Central Asia (1992)/ Frank's website

Three Generations of Human Rights

    

"Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." -- Jeane Kirkpatrick talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which she termed "a letter to Santa Claus."

Chris-in-a-rush sends me this (above) in an email this morning. To me, it really touches upon a point that I find interesting and worth considering. And that is while Kirkpatrick is positing that the UN's declaration is based solely on the particular philosophical perspectives of those persons who formulated the declaration, it remains dubious whether she realizes that the same, in fact, holds for her own perspective. Really, this is to ask the question why (or under what authority) the right to gather or the right of free speech is in any way more fundamental or inalienable than say the right for clean water and nutritious food-- or universal healthcare? And, more, is there really such a thing as natural rights- and if so, under what authority?

It always comes back to the same example, but Kirkpatrick was a famous petitioner against authoratarianism. But how does one respond when the world's largest democracy is so mired in corruption that an unforgivable percentage of its population lives in abject poverty. Is the right to vote in fact somehow more desirable-- or more a moral imperative-- than the right to food?

The Europeans seem to consider all of the above essential human rights. Other regions , however, focus on certain rights over others. And, this is a significant point that both Daniel Bell and Parag Khanna have been working to address (and again, Khanna in particular I think does a great job here).

And, it's true that I can no longer abide by utilitarians.

More to the point, perhaps, is that I suppose personally I just don't have real libertarian tendancies. So, in that way, when I think about the issue of Three Generations of Human Rights, I tend to categorically value all of them-- but especially the 2nd generation ones.

My new friend Phil rightly says that in the EU one does not have to lose social welfare rights to gain individual liberty ones-- and I too think this is the ideal. Japan, as well, I think does a very good job at simultaneously safeguarding many of the 1st and 2nd generation rights. However, reading Bell's book (which is translated into japanese under the title, Asian Values & Liberal Democracy-- A Dialogue between East and West) I have felt so far that his ideas about both Confucianism and Communitarianism could also be appropriately applied to japan.

This is from a comment I left for Phil:

Concerning East Asian communitarianism, I do agree with Bell that in japan it is the focus-- both legally and culturally-- that issues which benefit the greater number of people will take precedent over the protection of individual rights. So, that in Japan, economic and social rights are prioritized over political/personal liberty rights for example. People argue that because Japan is a basically racially homogeneous society that things are just less complicated (that is they don't face the same challenges as a multi-ethnic pluralistic society). Maybe, but this ignores the point that society is set up very differently in Japan as compared to the US (and I am only comparing to the US right now).

Japan has outstanding universal medical care. Education is
egalitarian (budgets not decided by property taxes etc. all public schools have similar conditions), there are all kinds of economic protections for families, home owners, etc. Of course, it is not perfect, and compared to certain parts of the EU there are real lagging areas, at the same time, I would say these kinds of communal welfare issues are prioritized over and above individual legalistic protections (disrimination)

Here in LA, I am in a neighborhood )with pretty stringent community codes that keeps people from annoying each other (no painting your house blue or hanging out your laundry)... in Japan, there is no real legal recourse for issues at the commnuity level. We belong to neighborhood associations (and children's associations, and wife's associations ) to get things done. So, that things are done by consensus at this community level. Divorce too is much different in Japan (much more use of mediation using "community elders" before a divorce is even granted if both sides are not in agreement).. the list could go on and on.

On the other hand, there are gray areas with regard to censorship and things like wire tapping/listening in on phone calls, rights if you are arrested... all kinds of personal liberty issues in Japan are what I would call as gray. Media and business are much tighter with government-- which is run in a rather paternalistic fashion. This year the director of Shall we dance has a new film out about individual liberty issues for those accused of a crime. And this does not in any way mean that japanese people do not care about these political or personal liberty issues. Not at all. Just that the stress is placed more strongly on issues of communal welfare.

**

So to respond to Alan Baumler's question of what I am enjoying about the book, I would say that it is Bell's overall commitment to pushing back the boundaries of "western academic and cultural presumptions." I wrote about this at length here, particularly my interest with regard to linking this to the work of a professor whose work I translate in the field of aesthetics. Related to this is the question of social welfare as a human right-- which Bell brings up. I guess I am less interested in the Asian values versus liberal democracy debate as I am in Bell's overall philosophical project.

With regard to Bell's presentation of Asia in generalized terms. I understand your point, Alan. I cannot agree, however, as I am still in his China section so everything I have read till now has been confined to China. And again, I do not see describing China as Confucian as any more problematic than defining US society as being informed by Enlightenement philosophy and Protestantism (city on a hill). Having said this, though, I would be interested in learning Bell's stance on  Charter 08.

I can imagine what he would say, but I don't really know.

This book remains about means not ends (but I say that being only part-way through the book!)

*

Painting at top by another favorite Vietnamese painter, Le Thiet Cuong.

 

when the dream is over

Not only would I say it is one of the most beautiful buildings in Los Angeles, but in my opinion it is the only really interesting piece of architecture in the entire city.

Gehry's Walt Disney Theater. I love it and think it is absolutely inspired (and I'm just talking about the exterior right now!)

I had wanted to go to this particular performance to hear Brahm's Symphony No 1-- which I love. Apparently other people had the same idea-- well actually, I think the majority of people were really there to see the soloist, Nikolaj Znaider. My mom had requested the best seats in the house, but even 2 months prior to the performance that meant way up directly above the right side of the orchestra, looking straight down diagonally facing the conductor and the Philharmonic's 1st violonist.

Adonis, seeing where we would be sitting grew beside himself with excitement.

"I've always wanted to sit here!" he said stripping off his sweater and grabbing his conductor's stick, he prepared to watch and do some conducting of his own as the people next to us grew visibly concerned.

Like Huizong facing the impending Jurchen horde, Brahms had his problems as well. And those problems? In a word: Beethoven. How to confront the elephant in the room? Beethoven's presence was enormous and Brahms was all too aware that no matter what he did, the comparison to Beethoven would be inevitable. And so he struggled. And this symphony no 1 took him I think perhaps a decade to realize. And what path would Brahms choose? Well, I think that is what was so interesting about him. For he was to choose to incorporate so much of Beethoven directly into his music.

So, there we were, sitting 2 tiers above the horns-- as Adonis frantically conducted from his seat to Brahm's Tragic Overture-- which speaking of problems, Brahm's friend Clara (the female of the triangle) dismissed as being "not at all melodic."

The Overture, however, was followed by a performance so magnificent that I was actually overwhelmed. Even Adonis quietly put away his stick so he could just watch.

The violinist, Nikolaj Znaider, is considered to be one of the world's best. And, I didn't realize this beforehand, but he plays on a del Gesu. The moment he began playing, my first thought in fact was-- ah, a del Gesu, because there is something about the sound-- which of course I could never describe, being completely unmusical. Except that it reminds me of the tonal quality of a cello. Guarneri del Gesu instruments seem larger and perhaps more masculine than the sounds of other violins. Pagnini famously played on one and maybe because of that they seem to be associated with virtuoso playing... I don't know, but that first note grabbed my attention and I was immediately inspired.

The Violin Concerto in D was created for one of the world's all-time greatest violinists, Joseph Joachim. I guess Joachim was not only a technical genius but he also had these huge oversized hands. Brahms wrote the piece of music with these two facts in mind and the experts say that it remains one of the most challenging pieces of violin music in existence.

Znaider-- who struck me by his calm demeaner was mopping his face with his handkerchief at every pause in the music-- it must have been extraordinarily strenuous. The entire hall was getting hotter and hotter too as you could feel the palpable attention being paid to this man's music. Los Angeles is not New york. But people were growing visibly excited and by the finale- Adonis and I were on the edges of our seats. In fact, when Znaider started passionately playing the Hungarian inspired ending, Adonis jumped up to kiss me on the lips and just stood there standing-- waiting for the end. He couldn't believe the way people all lept to their feet, shouting bravo (or I am not even sure what people were shouting because the applause were so loud).

After the intermission, the orchestra turned to the symphony but I think people were already just too overhwelmed to take in more music. Adonis asked for his stick again and conducted but we were already done (for the dream was over).

**

See this article (orginally from the Wall Street Journal) about Znaider and his del Gesu.

East Meets West in Constantinople

My debates with my friend Shunya have taken on a formalized quality-- not all that unlike that of ritualized dance. I play my role as he plays his; we dance round and round; always ending up in the same place-- seemingly unendingly prepared and willing to dance yet again. 

While not a universalist by any means, Shunya hesitates to see human rights too firmly grounded in local culture-- for he asks (always sensibly, I think)

 Is it reasonable to think of Chinese culture as a single entity and resisting all judgment in the name of a pluralism of world cultures? Aren't there many contending forces within Chinese society--struggles and sufferings and countless interplays of power and dominance? Why should we not take sides and show solidarity based on our own values? Is there any reason to think that the present Chinese government is an organic expression of its people?

It is hard to argue really. Except-- well, I do argue.

Shunya, you see, is taking the more rigorous path. He is trying to come up with a constructive understanding of how things should be.

I, on the other hand, remain focused only on what they shouldn't. And, like Bell, I have deep problems with the detached (impartial) universalist approach. Why? Because the impartial approach is not only rarely impartial but in fact oftentimes it is downright parochial.

As I wrote here,

I do think there are many places, which I shall call the Old World countries, where people remain quite conscious of the way in which their culture is unique and non-transferable; while there are other places, which I shall call New World countries, which are shaped by utopian, philosophical notions in which they see their way of life as having model-like qualities-- something to which all cultures could if they so desired strive toward; even in some cases, seeing the modern liberal democratic way as being the culmination of enlightened development.

And herein lies the tension.

Shunya agrees but asks: How can one not impose one's cultural values while at the same time refrain from siding with the executioners?

There are many possible answers to this question-- and I like all of you have come to my own conclusions regarding this. And, like Bell's my conclusions remain firmly committed to a culturally-informed approach.

(This being the main point, I think, of Part 1 of his book).

As many of the readers of these pages will recall, I recently read Parag Khanna's tour de force book, The Second World. Khanna in his book, makes the very crucial point that if the US wishes to continue playing a leadership role in the world, it might have to accept the fact that it is no longer the only game in town; and that, the world is no longer in a post-Cold War state of being whereby there are only two choices to choose from: our way or the highway.

Rather now, in what Khanna calls the geopolitical marketplace, up and coming developing countries, as well as other First World Countries for that matter, can "shop around" and choose to align themselves with one of several superpowers-- or better: align themselves with more than one at the same time- keeping things interesting.

According to Khanna, currently there are three superpowers that stand as empires: the US, the EU and China. So, for example, nowadays a "second world" country in Central Asia might wish to take on aspects of China's "communitarian" traditions (which stress collective welfare and stable, centralized government over over individual, political rights, etc.).

With this in mind, of particularly note, I think is the EU, which has done tremendous work in pushing forward international standards in everything from the environment to human rights. The EU approach,  which could characterize as being both cosmopolitan as well consensus-style, is in all probability the way of the future as far as the watch-guarding over the worst kinds of abuses. I think we will also see a further "shopping around" when it comes to this issue of human rights as well, so that, indeed, there will be nations that will choose to place a priority on collective welfare, economic and property rights over that of a US-led "political and civil rights centrism" (for example).

**

Candide.

He traveled far and wide-- and wherever he went he was confronted by great hardship and evil. The problem of evil. In the end, you will recall, he met a charming Turk in Constantinople who invites him home and offers him homemade sherbets of cream flavored with candied citron, orange, lemon, lime, pineapple, pistachio and some mocha coffee, and Candide says to him that he must possess an enormous and splendid property. The Turk answers, No, I only have twenty acres that I cultivate with my family and the work keeps us from the three great evils: boredom, vice, and poverty.

Professor Pangloss is going on about how "All events are linked together in the best of all possible worlds" ("there cannot possibly be an effect without a cause and that in this best of all possible worlds the Baron's castle was the best of all castles and his wife the best of all possible Baronesses" -- also known in other regions as Everything Happens For A Reason) and if Candide hadn't been kicked out of his homeland, if he hadn't gone up against the Inquisition, if he hadn't traveled across America on foot, if he hadn't killed a baron, if he hadn't lost all his sheep in Eldorado, well, then he wouldn't be sitting here eating some nice candied citron and pistachios in Constantinople.

To which Candide replies, That is very well put, but we must cultivate our garden. 

And people have debated ever since whether Voltaire was implying a passive retreat from the outer world to cultivate one's inner Self, or whether he was advocating productive occupation and engagement (in the form of gardening) with the world.

Like all gardens-- Candide's garden could symbolize just about anything-- and indeed, to my mind it does just that.

To remain committed and engaged-- but at the same time perhaps remembering that Candide's garden was in the end "his garden."  If an engaged commitment to peace and human rights is like a a beautiful Persian garden full of roses (and indeed I think it is), then I think there are two things that can be learned-- and these are Bell's points.

If the ultimate aim of human rights diplomacy is to persuade others of the value of human rights, then in my view the struggle is more likely to be won if it is fought in ways that build on, rather than challenge, local cultural traditions (55).

That is to say if you want to practice your gardening techniques in someone else's garden, it's probably not a bad idea to take into account local weather and soil conditions-- right? This is conservative advice. For a more critical look at the validity of the impartial voice in ethics (and life) I recommend Dreyfus' article on Kierkegaard and the Internet (which many of you know I love) or take a look at Bell's stance on The Impartiality of Justice.

The other is just to reiterate Candide's words that it is our own gardens that, in the end, we are called to cultivate. For there is no better way to persuade than as exemplary model-- which is really just to say that while a US approach will see gaps in the Chinese approach, so too will a EU approach see huge gaps in the US approach (who is speaking out for the rights of those without health care and food in inner cities?)  

Voltaire, for all his glorious candied citron, pistachios, and a love life that never quit, still remained in the end yet another monoglot philosopher. In that sense, I appreciate Daniel Bell-- and his "Confucian project" to push back our cultural blind spots, as I think that will continue to be our greatest challenge---- how to be embodied in more interesting ways.  

**

Thanks for reading!

Part 2 of the East Meets West reading will be meeting at Chris Panza's place-- so check there soon! (I will make an announcement here when it goes up).

city of dreams

         

夢の都...

It was known as the "City of Dreams." But not much remains of what was once the most populous city in the world; for the ever-flooding Yellow River has all but washed away the history of this once beautiful capital city of a thousand years ago, Kaifeng.

Fortunately there is a famous hand-scroll, thought to have been once part of my lover's collection and now kept at the Palace Museum in Beijing, called Going Up-River at the Qing Ming Festival, which shows us something of what the city must have been like in its heyday.

A full five meters in length (!) the horizontally unrolling handscroll begins at right-- in the suburbs. Well outside the city gates of Kaifeng, we see people traveling on donkeys or on foot among the willow trees and thatched-roof dwellings in what is really a semi-rural scene. Just for those few out there who may not recall, the Qing Ming Festival referred to in the painting’s title is an important festival in China even today, and occurs on the third day of the third month according to the lunar calendar. It is a day of Purification when Chinese people travel back to their hometowns to sweep the tombs of their ancestors and celebrate the return of spring, and the people we see in the painting are perhaps home from the capital to visit family or to pay their respects at the family tomb or shrine.

Canals created from the great Yellow River dominate the scene with boats traveling lazily up and down the waterways. If we follow the canal from the suburbs traveling down the painting, we soon find ourselves drifting closer and closer toward the great gates of the capital. As opposed to the Tang dynasty when the gates at Chang’an and Loyang were guarded during the day and then shut firmly at night, I am told that at Song Kaifeng, the city gates were open twenty-four hours a day, and people were free to move in and out of the city as they liked. 

And so we too walk through the great gate..

Traveling through the painting, before long we arrive at the gracefully arched Rainbow Bridge-- considered by many to be the central focal point of the painting of the handscroll. Packed with people (there are over 700 people drawn carefully into this picture), the bridge is lined with food stalls and vendors, with ladies being carried aloof in palanquins trying to make their way through the crowded city scene. As a large boat packed with passengers struggles to negotiate its way under the bridge, we finally make our way though the great city gate and enter the city proper. Passing a camel train of traders on their way out of the city, we come to the painting’s secondary focal point: the town pub. An imposing two-story building, the sign out front reads: zhengdian (?), the “main branch” of what must have been a chain of pubs.

From here we come to a main intersection, crowded with ox-drawn carts, more palanquins full of aristocratic ladies and all variety of people; we see merchants, Buddhist priests, professional story-tellers, gentlemen, peddlers as well as deliverymen all making their way through the crowded scene. Although the artist, Zhang Zeduan, was an Artist at Court, in this picture he depicts not the refined world of the Palace but rather the vibrant and prosperous world of this great merchant city-- which is reminiscent of another, much later "Eastern Capital" to the east (東京).

**

Kaifeng

It was into this city that my man was born and raised in. The readers of these pages will-- I am quite sure-- recall that, perhaps more than anything, I love to think of him roaming the busy streets disguised as a scholar.

Didn't Peter the Great also take a long overseas trip disguised as an aristocrat? I remember reading about him causing all kinds of trouble in England when he wanted to keep up his show but of course everyone knew he was the emperor-- or did I only imagine reading that? And wasn't another emperor's galavanting in disguise the reason why you still knock your fingers on the table after receiving tea in Hong Kong? Don't quote me, I am away from my books and my trusty librarian Señor Borges isn't returning my calls again-- so this is just how I remember it-- not necessarily how it really was...

**

And, so he had special tunnels dug under the Forbidden City in order to visit his favorite courtesan’s house or walk the streets of Kaifeng un-detected and so could continue obliviously writing his poetry and lavishly spending on the arts as his country teetered on the edge of disaster.

I think when one is facing a terrible dilemna there are 3 possible approaches.

One, you can ignore the problem.

Two, you can face the problem head-on

or

Three, you can seek to eliminate the causes of the problem so that the problem will cease to arise.

His detractors perhaps could accuse Huizong of the first, while those who are fond of him might prefer to posit the third.

And, there he was. The country on the brink of disaster and rather than mobilizing the army, he sought instead to throw himself into the study and re-cataloging of the ancient bronzes. As if to say, in the words of one of my aristocratic friends, if I could just get the bronzes right, everything else would follow suit.

Great archaeological and art historical research-- respected even today-- was undertaken to both interpret the inscriptions found on the bronzes as well as to properly reconstruct the rituals in which they were used so that “[k]nowledge that was barely retained in the Han period, and was all but lost since the third century, was recovered almost in an instant.” For this purpose, Huizong created several palace institutes devoted to the Rites and Music, and countless new bronzes vessels were re-cast closely following the aesthetic and technical blueprint of the ancients, to the success that, also in the words of James C.Y. Watt, “[t]oward the end of the Northern Song, period, bronzes made in the archaic style were virtually indistinguishable from Shang and Zhou prototypes.”

**

Knowing their government by seeing their ritual; knowing their virtue by hearing their music (Mencius)

It is such an obvious point and yet for some strange reason, it is one that I delight in thinking about. And that is, that in the same way that ritual served as an expression of the government and an music expression of the virute of the people, so too did ritual also serve to shape and affect the government as music helped to influence the virtue of the people. Because probably not all that unlike the way you couldn't perform the elaborate procedures of tea ceremony unless you had prepared yourself, at the same time the performing of the procedures would itself have a profound affect on the performer.

Alan Baumler wrote a post a few days ago concerning teaching about the Rites and Music to US-based students. Like Alan, in my thinking, I tend to somehow remain focused on the Rites, when in fact it might just be the music that will serve to be the more interesting thing to think about. Awhile back, I was told by a man serving at the Court in Yogyakarta that the Javanese gamelan had its roots in this ancient Chinese ritual music. I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but when I think of this ancient music that so delighted my man, I almost always imagine it to sound like the music in one of my favorite gamelan recordings, Court Music of Kraton Surakarta (King Records). All the japanese recordings in this series are absolutely gorgeous, but this one in particular has a strong affect on my mood.

Alan ends his post, with this link to a Daniel Bell book (concerning Confucianism and music), and so I guess I too should add that the much-awaited (??) Daniel Bell book reading will start here sometime next week and continue on at Chris' place-- or vice versa. For those interested, please check back next week.

Cheers!

*

Google has a really surprisingly good article on the painting here.

 

 

shirakawa shizuka

A summary of Shirakawa's presentation of the origins of Confucian Virtue (from his 孔子伝）: How Confucian virtue is based on the historical concept of tian

*I am just aiming for a direct translation and this is just a draft. My opinions are in blue.

[Tian/Heaven 天の思想]
（殷 Yin）
・During the 殷 dynasty, the concept of Tian （天）was based on the idea that heaven ［天｝ and earth （地）were one realm where gods and humans lived together. The kingdom was ruled based on religion and government.

・During the 殷 dynasty, "di" (帝) was a 人格神 【じんかくしん】 anthropomorhic god (i.e. a god who has human form, emotions, etc.); and the Yin dynasty King was the representative on earth who worshipped "shangdi." The dynasty itself was founded on this connection that the king had with "shangdi," which was based on myths/legends (in this way kings were sage kings)

・There was a custom of using sake to communicate with "di" 

（Zhou周）
・The new dynasty, which had its roots in nomadic tribes to the far north did not have this mythology and with the 殷周革命, the concept of "shangdi" as 人格神 was replaced with the more rational （abstract?)concept of tian 「天」. This was the start of China's rational spirit (合理主義的な精神の始まり)

・  天意が民意によって媒介されるという考え。受命によって生まれた王権は、また「革命」によって失われる危険性がある。即ち、「天の思想」とは「革命の思想」である。(掀起革命)

Heaven's Will  ( 天意) is intermediated by popular will (民意). Kingship is founding on the receiving of the Mandate of Heaven (受命), but this carries with it the danger of  革命. In this way, therefore, the idea of Heaven ［天］ carries within it the idea for 革命。

Kingship is based on the mandate of heaven which carries the danger of 「革命」. That is, because kingship is based on 天命; a concept which has inherent to it the idea that heaven's will 天意 is expressed and or mediated by  民意。the mediation of that the concept of tian is the concept of 「革命」。

（Idea of Tian and the concept of virtue 天の思想と徳の観念）
・ The idea of tian came about in ancient times when religion and politics were separated （Zhou).

・This introuduction of the rational spirit into Chinese thought was an expression of heaven's will be mediated by popular human will (天意が民意を媒介として表現できる) and this was itself based on the realization that this moral virtue (that is the ability to collectively intermediate with heaven's will)  is at the foundation of our human existence.

・ Moral virtue is naturally and entirely inherent within people
・ Furthermore this concept is both universal and knoweable
・ The idea of tian (天) informed the Confucianists' understanding of Connfucian rule and moral ethics during the later Zhou.