Years of Poems and Spirits

今日通读，读通《道德经》。很有意思。全篇开头最有意思，一言蔽之，“什么事情一旦成了‘奋斗目标’，就会失去它原生的意义”。

Fascinating. Thoughts -

1. Isn’t Chinese/East Asian Buddhism somewhat influenced by Taoism? Suddenly, I have the urge to talk to an Indian Buddhist or a Tibetan one. My guess is their version of Buddhism has a different focus than that of the East Asian version. The one I was exposed to in China is an amalgamated product that may have a localized interpretation of “abstinence from desire”. Or maybe not.

2. How come Taoism didn’t evolve into a brand of philosophical thoughts, instead degenerated into a cult-like sect? Lack of disciples? Apparently, the spark was there but it didn’t sustain a flame. Must be due to the specific context of the cultural-economic reality at that time and space. What was it exactly? Could it have evolved differently?

3. Some of the allegories (if they can be called that) are full of imaginary but lack of logical coherence. Such as the spoke on a wheel or an empty house. What does that have in common with lack of desire?

Now go back to work …

It is a cold, damp Seattle evening. Red Square is dark and foggy. People in hooded jackets walking in and out of the vast fuzziness around me like figures in paintings.

Still, I was pretty emotional being back on campus after so long. When I first went to the Enchantments, looking at the golden larch trees pitched against intensely blue autumn sky, I was pretty overwhelmed and thought, somehow, I don’t deserve such a moment.

This is not the same environ by any means but the feeling is the same. It is a luxury to be in school. Not that everyone in academia is any different from people I see on the street. But in a classroom, when it comes to learning, everyone has to put on a different face, hide one’s psyche, talks in a certain tongue and thinks in a certain way. In other words, there is certain role-play while in a classroom. And that, is exactly what a Platonic “form” to me.

Tonight’s topic is Xin Jiang. Maybe the emotion carried through but I was in tearful despair when a couple of kids from China spoke passionately in defense of their government. I thought of Yang Lei, the one I know that is closest to being a martyr. But mostly I thought of myself. Of how lonely being is. Maybe Camus is right, Sisyphus must be happy.

At the end of the day, still had to work into late night. It has been very stressful recently. I think I am a little bit on edge now. What is not helpful is an email from Harrison Street. As confusing as it was upsetting. What a shame something this good could turn ugly this quickly. But life is too short to dwell on that.

On more thing -

First time to listen to Prof. Kasaba lecture. He is one that is not very good at giving small talk but very passionate about big arguments. His topic was Turkish reaction during the Urumqi unrest. It is quite fascinating. He was pretty critical as I would, but also saw the irony of Turkish Nationalism: the duality of ethnocentricity and desire for material glory (e.g. the Turkish President just visited China a month before). Turkey was one of the few countries that really fascinated me (as a case study) in Jackson School (students from Turkey are not unlike those from China nowadays but a little bit self-critical). I had so many questions.

While listening to a debate on healthcare, I came to this question again – at what point an issue becomes complicated enough that people resort to their belief/faith and abandon reason altogether?

Apparently, this is a gradual process -

1. If the issue is simple enough, or there are only a few deciding factors, simple reasoning (”good common sense”)  would prevail. E.g. political grandstanding don’t always work.

2. When the issue getting more complex, there are more and more competing factors, biased reasoning started to kick in. People only listen to things they like to listen and argue with arguments become self-reinforcing (what is that term for this?) E.g. cable talk shows, healthcare, etc.

3. When the issue becomes too complex, it is all about beliefs and faith. There is little room for reason. It is no longer in the secular domain. E.g. religion, etc.

This ought to be an interesting question since there are only a few variables involved. And it is a very relevant question, particularly in democracy.