Hans-Georg Moeller? Glad to see your content on here! UA-cam can always use more academic expertise (and less profit-driven interests), especially when it comes to Chinese philosophy. On top of your published works, I've enjoyed your content on the other channel "Carefree Wandering" and I wonder what connection these two channels have with one another. Either way, your presence raises the standard for all philosophy content on UA-cam.
Thank you so much for this video. I have just finished “Daoism Explained”, and have started to read “Genuine Pretending” and Ziporyn’s translation of the Zhuangzi. Honestly while I had quite understood the part about the Butterfly Dream even before I reread it here, the part about Hundun had mostly flew over my head. I only recalled it being somewhat about promoting nonintervention. So thank you for explaining it in such great detail here. Will be looking forward to your next video.
Thank you so much! It may not be a traditional Daoist interpretation, but I've always thought that Hundun's original state represents pure subjectivity. In other words, what we look like from the inside-- from first person experience-- is nothing. We are just a "seeing out." However, when we conceive of ourselves from the point of view of others, from society at large, we become objects; we gain a "face" or persona.
I know about 混沌 from 山海经 (the classic of mountains and seas).This is my first time to find out that it appears in Zhuangzi too.In 山海经，this mythological being is described as an animal looking like a sack with six feet and four wings, with no eyes, nose and mouth but can sing and dance.I can identify with that 混沌 from my personal life experience. I'm very introverted and people forced me to open myself and be like them, thinking they are doing something good to me, while they actually hurt me, just like the other 2 guys made holes into 混沌s face as an act of repaying his kindness, but instead they are killing him.That's why I love Taoism so much recently, because it fits my personality and my view of the world.
Damn! That was an excellent read of an otherwise nonsensical story starring the deity of nonsense. I feel like I finally have a SOME grasp of what Hundun is, after finding out about him from Warriors Orochi.
Hi, thanks for uploading this video. I really like the interpretations in this series. I'm currently reading Zhuangzi in the Victor Mair translation. Curiously what do you think of the Mair translation? Which translation/s would you recommend?
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Hi, thanks for replying. I noticed Ziporyn's Zhuangzi: The Complete Writings differs considerably from Ziporyn's partial Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. At times he has completely altered the translation to the point where it seems as if they were translated by two different people. The revisions really are that extensive.
Actually, it does. You may check this briefly on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonton: "Ancient Chinese thought wonton were a sealed bun, lacking "Qi Qiao" (seven orifices). So it was called "hun tun," which means chaos. Based on the Chinese method of making characters, later it changed the name to "hun dun" (wonton)" or in Chinese here: zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%84%E9%A5%A8 . In any case: Thanks for watching!
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks for the reply! I’m aware that the Wikipedia entry mentions this. However, I think it is a mistake to say that Zhuangzi intends a pun here, for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time. The earliest evidence for it is in Yangqiong’s楊雄 book Fangyan 方言 (the Han dynasty 西漢). Second, even if 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time, there is no point of making a pun in Zhuangzi’s narrative. Furthermore, it is not clear that there is any connection between 混沌 and 餛飩. The author of Zhongguo gushi yu mingwu 中國古史與名物 (2017), for example, thinks that there is no such connection.
@@jinghuang6667 I got a tattoo with the characters 混沌 when I was living in China. And so many Chinese people made fun of me when they saw it. They thought I just really liked dumplings.... I would love to be able to say there is no connection at all between these words!!! 😂
You have a sinological background!? Let me therefore further explain: We neither say in the video (you seem to have misunderstood since you do not represent correctly what we actually say) that the story in the Zhuangzi makes an intentional pun Hundun/Wonton nor that Wonton (the dumplings) existed "in Zhuangzi's time." What we say is something very different, namely that today's word "Wonton", which is better known in the West than the word "hundun," is a "variation" of the latter. We said this so that Western viewers--who are largely unfamiliar with the connotations of "hundun"--can better grasp what it implies as a mythological idea, namely some sort of "mixed-up" mass full of potential/energy. I am sorry to hear that you find this not useful. The very evidence you mention seems to me to show clearly that hundun/Wonton are related/connected/similar in many ways: graphically (your comments are self-contradictory: while you say that the two compounds have "absolutely nothing to do" with one another the very way you write them in Chinese in your statement shows that at least they share common graphic elements in several variants), phonetically, semantically, and probably etymologically. Another, sinologically more important, point: You speak of "Zhuangzi's time" twice, implying that we know that the Zhuangzi text we have today was written prior to Han times by Zhuangzi, the person. We do not know this, however, and it is actually highly doubtful that the whole text was written by one person at one time (we are not even sure if a person Zhuangzi existed at all). Precisely because we have very little evidence (there are just a few unearthed fragments) of what the text might have looked like prior to the Han dynasty, in our approach to the text we try to avoid assuming that the present editions of the text correspond exactly (or: word by word) to its (potential) form in pre-Qin times. In other words: it's a) inaccurate to assume that the individual characters (including those for "hundun") as they appear in extant editions of the text today are from "Zhuangzi's time"--and b) the expression "in Zhuangzi's time" is itself misleading because it suggests both that we know that and when the person Zhuangzi lived (which we don't know) and that we know that the text as we have it was written at a specific point in time--whereas in fact it is the result of a complex process of writing/compiling/editing/publishing stretching over many centuries until today (as it is common for ancient texts) and involving a large number of people (writers, scribes, editors, compilers, commentators, etc.). While traditional scholarship tended to assume the existence of some sort of "original" "Urtext", especially regarding presumed "classics," modern scholarship tends to see the production of texts more as a gradual and continuing almost "evolutionary" process. The notion of "Zhuangzi's time" is therefore not precise at all.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks for the reply. Let me be brief here: I happen to know a bit about the background of the interpretation of 混沌 in the video. Victor Mair in his Zhuangzi translation (1994) has argued that Zhuangzi uses “Wonton soup” 餛飩 as a metaphor for chaos here (p. 386). As I have pointed out, this is mistaken because there is no evidence that 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time. I think it is misleading to continue Mair’s view (though without mentioning him) in the video. Now a brief reply to the question if it is problematic to say “in Zhuangzi’s time”. The story of Chaos 混沌 is from the inner chapters. Most scholars agree that the inner chapters are from the same author and should be ascribed to Zhuangzi, a philosopher of the Warring States period. As far as I know, no one has argued that the story of Chaos 混沌 is not from Zhuangzi. And the name of Chaos 混沌 is the key point of this story right? So I don’t see any reason why it is problematic to talk about “Zhuangzi’s time” in this very context. If 餛飩 didn’t exist in the Warring States period, then it is impossible for Zhuangzi to make a pun here.
I just discovered this as well as the videos from Hans-Georg Moeller. There's so much to take in but it's all very refreshing. Thank you.
HGM's books on Daoism are brilliant. I particularly recommend 'Genuine Pretending'
Hans-Georg Moeller? Glad to see your content on here! UA-cam can always use more academic expertise (and less profit-driven interests), especially when it comes to Chinese philosophy. On top of your published works, I've enjoyed your content on the other channel "Carefree Wandering" and I wonder what connection these two channels have with one another. Either way, your presence raises the standard for all philosophy content on UA-cam.
Ian, between you, Hans-Georg, and Bryan Van Norden, we still need more academic Chinese Philosophy content. Or any non-Western philosophy.
I love daoism, nothing makes me feel more like I fit in the world
Sending gratitude from a Daoist monastery near Seattle (USA)!
Thank you so much for this video. I have just finished “Daoism Explained”, and have started to read “Genuine Pretending” and Ziporyn’s translation of the Zhuangzi. Honestly while I had quite understood the part about the Butterfly Dream even before I reread it here, the part about Hundun had mostly flew over my head. I only recalled it being somewhat about promoting nonintervention. So thank you for explaining it in such great detail here. Will be looking forward to your next video.
Without a doubt one of the best videos I have ever seen!!! !
(Remember to turn on subtitles!) What do you think?
Thank you so much! It may not be a traditional Daoist interpretation, but I've always thought that Hundun's original state represents pure subjectivity. In other words, what we look like from the inside-- from first person experience-- is nothing. We are just a "seeing out." However, when we conceive of ourselves from the point of view of others, from society at large, we become objects; we gain a "face" or persona.
powerful stuff
Dang, all those interpretations are really good.
Thanks~
Excellent vid!!! Thank You very much ,) Love & Chi
I know about 混沌 from 山海经 (the classic of mountains and seas).This is my first time to find out that it appears in Zhuangzi too.In 山海经，this mythological being is described as an animal looking like a sack with six feet and four wings, with no eyes, nose and mouth but can sing and dance.I can identify with that 混沌 from my personal life experience. I'm very introverted and people forced me to open myself and be like them, thinking they are doing something good to me, while they actually hurt me, just like the other 2 guys made holes into 混沌s face as an act of repaying his kindness, but instead they are killing him.That's why I love Taoism so much recently, because it fits my personality and my view of the world.
Damn! That was an excellent read of an otherwise nonsensical story starring the deity of nonsense. I feel like I finally have a SOME grasp of what Hundun is, after finding out about him from Warriors Orochi.
For further personal reference: 2:28
1:06 That’s very similar with Deleuze’s Body Without Organs
Deleuze has often been called a Vitalist and shares a lot of similarities with Daoist ideas
Great thought-provoking video! 🥰 Will there be more videos about Daoism here on this channel?
Yes, "happy fish" and "cook ding" are in progress, please stay tuned! (I really love these two, very interesting ones) - Fai
@@philosophyinmotion
Subscribed! 😁😋
Nice
Thanks
Hi, thanks for uploading this video. I really like the interpretations in this series. I'm currently reading Zhuangzi in the Victor Mair translation. Curiously what do you think of the Mair translation? Which translation/s would you recommend?
Yes, the Mair translation is good. I also recommend Brook Ziporyn's edition.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Hi, thanks for replying. I noticed Ziporyn's Zhuangzi: The Complete Writings differs considerably from Ziporyn's partial Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. At times he has completely altered the translation to the point where it seems as if they were translated by two different people. The revisions really are that extensive.
But what if we could turn the specialized ones into stem again? Possibly through miraculous technology or just by relativity, or both
I can't find the source of the quote at 3:31...
Laozi, chapter 52
Sun Wukong makes much more sense now.
Thanks for this video. But Zhuangzi’s 混沌 has absolutely nothing to do with 餛飩! No pun intended. This needs to be corrected.
Actually, it does. You may check this briefly on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonton: "Ancient Chinese thought wonton were a sealed bun, lacking "Qi Qiao" (seven orifices). So it was called "hun tun," which means chaos. Based on the Chinese method of making characters, later it changed the name to "hun dun" (wonton)" or in Chinese here: zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%84%E9%A5%A8 . In any case: Thanks for watching!
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks for the reply! I’m aware that the Wikipedia entry mentions this. However, I think it is a mistake to say that Zhuangzi intends a pun here, for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time. The earliest evidence for it is in Yangqiong’s楊雄 book Fangyan 方言 (the Han dynasty 西漢). Second, even if 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time, there is no point of making a pun in Zhuangzi’s narrative. Furthermore, it is not clear that there is any connection between 混沌 and 餛飩. The author of Zhongguo gushi yu mingwu 中國古史與名物 (2017), for example, thinks that there is no such connection.
@@jinghuang6667 I got a tattoo with the characters 混沌 when I was living in China. And so many Chinese people made fun of me when they saw it. They thought I just really liked dumplings.... I would love to be able to say there is no connection at all between these words!!! 😂
You have a sinological background!? Let me therefore further explain: We neither say in the video (you seem to have misunderstood since you do not represent correctly what we actually say) that the story in the Zhuangzi makes an intentional pun Hundun/Wonton nor that Wonton (the dumplings) existed "in Zhuangzi's time." What we say is something very different, namely that today's word "Wonton", which is better known in the West than the word "hundun," is a "variation" of the latter. We said this so that Western viewers--who are largely unfamiliar with the connotations of "hundun"--can better grasp what it implies as a mythological idea, namely some sort of "mixed-up" mass full of potential/energy. I am sorry to hear that you find this not useful. The very evidence you mention seems to me to show clearly that hundun/Wonton are related/connected/similar in many ways: graphically (your comments are self-contradictory: while you say that the two compounds have "absolutely nothing to do" with one another the very way you write them in Chinese in your statement shows that at least they share common graphic elements in several variants), phonetically, semantically, and probably etymologically. Another, sinologically more important, point: You speak of "Zhuangzi's time" twice, implying that we know that the Zhuangzi text we have today was written prior to Han times by Zhuangzi, the person. We do not know this, however, and it is actually highly doubtful that the whole text was written by one person at one time (we are not even sure if a person Zhuangzi existed at all). Precisely because we have very little evidence (there are just a few unearthed fragments) of what the text might have looked like prior to the Han dynasty, in our approach to the text we try to avoid assuming that the present editions of the text correspond exactly (or: word by word) to its (potential) form in pre-Qin times. In other words: it's a) inaccurate to assume that the individual characters (including those for "hundun") as they appear in extant editions of the text today are from "Zhuangzi's time"--and b) the expression "in Zhuangzi's time" is itself misleading because it suggests both that we know that and when the person Zhuangzi lived (which we don't know) and that we know that the text as we have it was written at a specific point in time--whereas in fact it is the result of a complex process of writing/compiling/editing/publishing stretching over many centuries until today (as it is common for ancient texts) and involving a large number of people (writers, scribes, editors, compilers, commentators, etc.). While traditional scholarship tended to assume the existence of some sort of "original" "Urtext", especially regarding presumed "classics," modern scholarship tends to see the production of texts more as a gradual and continuing almost "evolutionary" process. The notion of "Zhuangzi's time" is therefore not precise at all.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks for the reply. Let me be brief here: I happen to know a bit about the background of the interpretation of 混沌 in the video. Victor Mair in his Zhuangzi translation (1994) has argued that Zhuangzi uses “Wonton soup” 餛飩 as a metaphor for chaos here (p. 386). As I have pointed out, this is mistaken because there is no evidence that 餛飩 existed in Zhuangzi’s time. I think it is misleading to continue Mair’s view (though without mentioning him) in the video. Now a brief reply to the question if it is problematic to say “in Zhuangzi’s time”. The story of Chaos 混沌 is from the inner chapters. Most scholars agree that the inner chapters are from the same author and should be ascribed to Zhuangzi, a philosopher of the Warring States period. As far as I know, no one has argued that the story of Chaos 混沌 is not from Zhuangzi. And the name of Chaos 混沌 is the key point of this story right? So I don’t see any reason why it is problematic to talk about “Zhuangzi’s time” in this very context. If 餛飩 didn’t exist in the Warring States period, then it is impossible for Zhuangzi to make a pun here.