Vagueness in the Zhuangzi
...aneously used two translations of the text to English, in order to minimize the damage of using a subjective translation (and they always are, to some extent). The translations are by Victor Mair and Burton Watson, both of which are very popular translations among non-Chinese readers studying this book. I will be using Mair’s translation as a primary source, both because its passages are conveniently numbered and because it simply reads easier for me. Examples of “Conceptual Vagueness” Passage 5 In this chapter, although it does not explicitly appear in the text, one can argue that the text is self-contradictory, implying that the use of the terms “right” and “wrong” is wrong. In “Transformational Humor in the Zhuangzi”, James D. Sellman explains that this contradiction could well be intentional, with the purpose of showing the reader that the text, which is also a construct of human thought, cannot show any absolute truth, and the closest it can get is to suggest an idea of how this truth can be reached. (Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi, edited by Roger T. Ames) If we start by choosing to see this implicit self-contradiction, although it is not explicit in the text, and also accept Sellman’s explanation, then the term “wrong” is thrown into a vague state, where it can no longer have its original meaning. This actually goes very far to prove the point, namely showing that “wrong” is a weak term, and thus to label something as “wrong” would not have a very strong hold in reality. Passage 6: Fingers and Horses “To use a finger as a metaphor for the nonfingerness of a finger is not as good a using nonfingerness as a metaphor for the nonfingerness of a finger. To use a horse as a metaphor for the nonhorseness of a horse is not as good as using nonhorseness as a metaphor for the nonhorseness of a horse. Heaven and earth are the same as a finger; the myriad things are the same as a horse.” The first paragraph of this passage is usually met with terrified responses from readers who have no idea what they are to make of it. After taking some time to calm down, and having another look, what we can see is a structure along the following lines: “To use something in order to show how it is unlike itself is not as good as using something else to show how the original something is unlike itself. What we have here is an instruction to show ourselves that the label or definition we have put on something is actually vague; it can easily “smear” into that of something else, thus belittling the importance of these labels, and allowing us to free ourselves of them, as any Daoist should. The passage then goes on to explain that “Affirmation lies in our affirming; denial lies in our denying”. Basically, this explanation makes both “affirmation” and “denial” tautologies, with no hold in reality other than each one being the result of itself. By doing this the text makes both terms vague; neither is a clear valuation anymore, both are possible modes that have no validation in reality, other than the choice of one over the other, thus making the difference between them irrelevant. This is once again another way of showing the reader that labels are unnecessary and meaningless outside of our minds. Passage 8 “There is a beginning. There is a time before beginning. There is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something, but I do not know whether what I have said is really saying something or not.” Here, the concepts of time and existence, as perceived by humanity, are made vague, by being both finite and infinite at the same time. The following paragraph applies the same method to the concept of size, of longevity, and of multiplic...