My friend, the great Gialbo, amidst much singing and partying in his kingdom on the far side of the empire, has at last weighed in on Fingarette. Actually, "weighed in" might be a bit of an exaggeration as really he has only chimed in with the faintest hint of his own predilictions.
Let me start from the place where the King and I agree, which is this: when we talk about self as embedded in society, we are in the end only speaking of normative value. That is to say, Fingarette's presentation seems to me to be less about the fundamental nature of what the self is or about the finer details of ritual content, as it is ultimately really an exploration of what is excellence in terms of our human lives. Here in Gialbo speak:
Fingarette argues, or suggests really, that for Confucius the ethical value of the individual can only be a “function” (p. 75) of the value of ritual ceremony. The idea, as Fingarette construes it, is analogous to the value that a ceremonial vessel has in the context of ritual ceremony: the ceremonial vessel’s value is merely a function of the value of the ceremony, which does not depend at all on the utility of the vessel outside of that context, but on its ritual significance within the ritual. So, the analogous value of the individual human being would be a mere function of the value that human ceremony (li 禮) has
I agree as this is how I read Fingarette. And, for what it's worth, it is also how I read the Analects.
However, where the king and I take a different turn is in our understanding of the status of Zhou ritual within this worldview. For while I agree that there is not much in this presentation in terms of universal norms that could ever really satisfy the likes and desires of a bourgeois liberal like Richard Rorty (or the king, for that matter, in his post), on the other hand, I also do not see Fingarette's presentation of Confucian thought as being about some kind of demand to return to Zhou rituals in the way the King seems to be suggesting either.
For as Fingarette went to some lengths to discuss in the proceeding chapter, these rituals stand as exemplery model of a utopian society.
Some of you will no doubt recall that in my man's time too, during the Northern Song dynasty, there was this same call "to return to antiquity" 復古 And, at that time, I confess I sometimes found this to be quite annoying and more than once darkly wondered to myself which he found more interesting: getting his bronzes "right" or having fun with me painting peonies. But he insisted that it was to the past that we should look to find the most valuable hints of how to organize our empire (and I wonder if the other Hero of this story, Daniel Bell does not feel similarly?)
My love Huizong-- like Confucius-- was convinced that utopian society was something seen to have been already realized, solely in the reality of the past. It was never, for example, imagined in any sort of hope in the future or an afterlife as in the West. And it was in the past that one could find the “exemplary models” necessary for all moral actions, including the methods of enlightened government.
In a similar way to the Italians of the Renaissance who held the Ancients to be the “Grand Exemplars” in everything from art to politics, Confucius taught that the problems of the present age could be best solved by a “return to antiquity.” And, one did this by aiming to reconstruct the spirit and content of the rituals.
In this way, then, I think for any liberal who has inherited this notion of utopia as something we all work toward-- something posited in the future-- then, without a doubt, this call to return to (ie, "to reanimate" 68-9) the past as in Zhou rituals would seem irrelevant to our present age.
Perhaps in that way, as the Gialbo says
If Fingarette is right, Confucius isn’t concerned as much with “the family” or “the state” generically construed, but with a particular ceremonialized version of those things. It is the role, very narrowly, that a person can play within the family or state, as ritualized through the Zhou dynastic rituals, that confers upon the individual (as a “vessel” within that ceremony) the kind of value that Confucius champions....
However, to place normative value-- or define excellence-- as "function" is not to say that a human being is nothing but their function, though, is it? (this remains, by the way, my problem with Professor A Ku's reading). Because, in fact, as Fingarette, suggests in this quote below, it's not really the function per se but rather the skillful ability to creatively perform (76) in sacred context that is most at issue (the issue being that of what is human dignity):
Although the individual must cultivate himself, just as the temple vessel must be carved and chiseled and polished, this self-cultivation is no more central to man's dignity, in Confucius' views, then the preparation of the vessel is central. Preparation and training are essential, but it is the ceremony that is central and all the elements and relationships and actions in it are sacred though each has its special characteritstics.
And this is why Confucius goes on to tell us in no uncertain terms:
君子不器 A Gentleman is not a vessel
Because imagine a beautiful man of extraordinary intellect who spends his time in self-cultivation. He reads and writes and has devoted a veritable lifetime to working on his inner self. But in his effort, he does not marry or have children. He parts with his mother and father when they claim to be unable to understand his project. He lives in a foreign land, in no way a part of the community of that place. In one sense, he is to me as beautiful as any Zhou bronze vessel. He is a work of art-- except that if we stand with Confucius and place value on a life lived as the proper carrying out of one's particular connections-- and those obligations-- to others in community then in fact, this beautiful man is in the end a mere beautiful vessel-- ready to hand.
**
A bit of business but the blog librarian, Senor Borges, has alerted me to the fact that there have been some complaints from a few of you that I have been lately spending far too much time talking about drifting in my rickety boat with my lover the emperor. What can I say? Have I not already explained my philosophy of the need to start one's lover affairs in early spring? So-- of course-- he is much on my mind these days.
Some of you may be interested to know, though, that I have also been exchanging letters with a handsome prince from Rajasthan. The prince and I live, it seems, in palaces which are separated by precisely 14 kilometers. We will I am sure someday discuss the various transportation options available to find our way to each other, but for now, those 14 kilometers feels as wide as the Pacific Ocean. With so much to say, how much could we ever really communicate in letters so even our missives are more like coins one tosses in a wishing pond: "oh, if only we could talk about that too over tea."
One of those dream journey conversations (that happened in my heart) happened to be about this very topic too. That is, what it means to say that a gentleman is not a vessel. And I told him this:
This idea of excellence as non-specialized skillfulness-- that is the skill of being able to approach things as ends in themselves (never as means) is the standard interpretation in Japanese, by the way, of 君子不器。I think in Paradise, everything is an end in itself, don't you?
A lady of jen is not like a ritual bronze vessel afterall- (saké only in saké containers and each sized ding set aside for a particular use) but rather a truly excellent person knows the appropriate way to behave no matter what the circumstance. As one of my Japanese books explains, the 君子 can basically can "do it all" (filial piety, correct comportment, courage, loyalty, integrity...)
In modern japanese there is the expression 器が広い人 a wide vessel to connote this idea of a person who is very capable (but there are strong connotations of this being in the realm of human relations) No matter what you throw at them, they can handle it well.... I wonder if the opposite wouldn't be a person with a small heart..
Anyway, this entire conversation has made me terribly nostaligic of cooking small fish in bronze dings with Epicurus. I think of all of our many exchanges, this one was my favorite. And, in thinking about the above idea that a gentleman is not a vessel, he suggested we take a look at ddj 29.
Here he sends it with Ivanhoe's translation:
將欲取天下而為之,
吾見其不得已。
天下神器,不可為也,
為者敗之,執者失之。
故物或行或隨;
或歔或吹;
或強或羸;
或挫或隳。
是以聖人去甚,去奢,去泰。
將欲取天下而為之,
Those who would gain the world and do something with it,
I see that they will fail.
For the world is a spiritual vessel, and one cannot put it to use.
Those who use it ruin it, those who grab hold of it lose it.
And so
Sometimes things lead and sometimes they follow;
Sometimes they breathe gently and sometimes they pant;
Sometimes they are strong and sometimes they are weak;
Sometimes they fight and sometimes they fall;
This is why sages cast off whatever is extreme, extravagant, or excessive.
And hence we arrive at the idea that moral action should be seen as the appropriate performance of those actions which are always ends in and of themselves. This, of course, being how things happen in Paradise.
**
Also see: Talking to Fingarette: Part 1 & Talking to Fingarette: Part 2
I am still hoping, by the way, to learn more about the Song dynasty poem (a poem which has been lovingly preserved in Japan) that I wrote about in this post picnics and other persian pastimes.
As before, all paintings, by Bui Huu Hung, are lacquer on wood.
Borges recommends checking out this documentary of 1930s Colorful Jaipur (also in the documentaries at right). I recommend the article from Japan Focus US Bases and Empire
So, that's it-- except, well, am still dreaming of Jaipur:
Recent Comments