Book about Chinese numbers? (philosophy, customs, history)

Arts & Sciences Culture & History
1

Anyone here into Chinese philosophy?

I was looking thru Marcel Granet’s, La pensée chinoise. It has a section about numbers. For instance, one philosopher said:

Heaven is 1; the earth is 2; man is 3; 3 times 3 is 9; 9 times 9 is 81 (80 + 1), 1 governs the Sun; the Sun governs man; that’s why man is born in the 10th month of pregnancy.

Very interesting stuff. It gets far more detailed and theoretical as Granet continues. There are many European’s who think Granet’s book on Chinese thought is unsurpassed. I can believe it. But I’d like to check out others. I’m hoping there’s something more than just a summary of different philosophers and what they thought. I’m not sure if many have looked at Chinese thought thru a method like genealogy but who knows.

2

I believe that many persons in North America and Europe (including those with advanced degrees in medical science) would be surprised by the statement that a baby is born in the 10th month of pregnancy … but I won’t argue the point for the moment.

We can still point out various logical problems with this statement, and its attempt to establish a “rule” or to be accepted as some sort of “wisdom.”

First, this statement is clearly a reflection of the yin-yang duality. The “man” referred to therein then means the male of the human species.

However, the female of the species is also born in the 10th month of pregnancy (to use the Chinese calculation) … so how is that to be explained?? So … woman is governed by the Sun??? But according to the yin-yang duality, woman is governed by the moon !!!

Moreover, if this statement is to be considered a piece of wisdom, then how do we extrapolate it to the other creatures on the planet??? In other words, considering the gestation periods of other animals, how do we determine what “sign” they fall under, or what astronomical body governs their behavior, or whatever ???

Of very little value in the realm of “philosophy” … if you ask me.

Sorry to sound so negative, but I have been listening to all sorts of nonsense promoted as “knowledge” in Chinese/Taiwanese society for a long time, but the closer you do an inspection of it, the more readily you discover that it is all smoke and mirrors.

3

You should probably start off by reading Vol. III of Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilzation in China series. That volume deals with mathematics. A.C. Graham’s Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science may also be of interest.

4

First, this statement is clearly a reflection of the yin-yang duality. The “man” referred to therein then means the male of the human species.

However, the female of the species is also born in the 10th month of pregnancy [/quote]
I don’t know - I was thinking that “man” (without an article, plural or other modification) refers to the human species.

5

I believe that many persons in North America and Europe (including those with advanced degrees in medical science) would be surprised by the statement that a baby is born in the 10th month of pregnancy … but I won’t argue the point for the moment.[/quote]
Human gestation is typically 38 weeks or 266 days. An average month in the Gregorian calendar is about 30.44 days. Thus, 266 days is about 8.7 months. However, doctors will estimate the date of delivery based on 40 weeks from the woman’s last menstrual period. 40 weeks = 280 days or 9.2 months. This is where the popular understanding of 9 months of pregnancy comes from.

Gestation is measured from the point of conception to the point of birth. Obviously, before medical advances of the 20th century, no one could really measure the exact moment of conception. And for most woman, no one knows the exact date and time in which conception occurred as most are not fitted with an internal camera to capture the exact moment the sperm enters the egg. However, most women are the most fertile 2 weeks after their last menstrual period. Thus, pregnancy is almost always measured from the end of the woman’s last menstrual cycle or 40 weeks. The Chinese calendar month is based on the moon and each month is approximately 29.5 days. Thus 40 weeks or 280 days divided by a typical Chinese month of 29.5 days and one gets 9.5 months. One can round this to get 10 months but it’s really not necessary. Note that the OP did not write that man is born after 10 months of pregnancy, but rather “in the 10th month of pregnancy”.

Even if we go by the 9.2 month calculation earlier, the birth would still occur after 9 months or in the 10th month since the last menstruation.

Hartzell, from reading various posts on Forumosa, I gather that you’ve lived in Taiwan for quite a while. Surely you’ve heard the Chinese expression 十月懷胎.

6

Not that this isn’t interesting stuff, but I’d be skeptical of the ‘philosopher’s’ theory. Using numerology as a way to justify the order of nature and men always has had its problems.

That said, several cultures associate heaven with 1 (primacy, unity); earth with 2 (separation, secondary to heaven). But the part with 3x3, 9x9, that just sounds reaching. If there’s a sound explanation, I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, it just sounds like the guy was playing with numbers.

7

Perhaps the following quote from the French language wikipedia can help some along in this discussion (machine English translation below):

[ul]La philosophie chinoise différe assez radicalement de la philosophie occidentale, au point que, techniquement, on peut refuser de qualifier de « philosophiques » les méthodes et les résultats de sa démarche. Refusant très tôt la spéculation et n’approchant que rarement et tardivement de la métaphysique ou de la logique, la pensée chinoise s’appuie plus volontiers sur l’analogie que sur la logique, sur la résolution des problèmes concrets que sur la définition des concepts, sur l’exemplarité que sur la démonstration, sur la fluidité de l’esprit que sur la solidité des arguments. Ne reconnaissant pas d’entité unique, personnelle et créatrice du monde, l’idée de vérité ultime et absolue à sonder par la foi ou la raison n’est que rarement invoquée dans une discussion philosophique.[/ul]
Machine English translation of the above:

[ul]Chinese philosophy differs rather radically of Western philosophy, so much so that, technically, one can refuse to qualify “philosophical” methods and the results of its step. Refusing very early the speculation and approaching only seldom and tardily metaphysics or logic, the Chinese thought is based more readily on the analogy than on logic, on the resolution of the concrete problems than on the definition of the concepts, on the exemplarity than on the demonstration, the fluidity of the spirit than on the solidity of the arguments. Not recognizing single, personal and creative entity of the world, the idea of ultimate and absolute truth to probe by the faith or the reason only is not seldom called upon in a philosophical discussion.[/ul]

8

:slight_smile: Since when has any knowledge or science not come from philosophy (or poetry if you’re aware of this historical debate)? It’s only been recently that physics hasn’t been called natural philosophy.

Thanks for the recommendations Feiren. I was searching thru it with Google Books. In the chapter about fundamental ideas of chinese science, he mentions Granet’s book as one of the then 3 important ones already done, and it’s the one he calls “a work of genius.”

It’ll take me a while to get thru Granet. My French decent but not yet good enough to get everything. And then trying to extract and learn from his methods (and of his teachers and peers like Durkheim, Chavannes, Mauss (or followers like Levi-Strauss)). I have my hands full. :slight_smile:

[quote=“sjcma”]
[ul]Refusant très tôt la spéculation et n’approchant que rarement et tardivement de la métaphysique ou de la logique, la pensée chinoise s’appuie plus volontiers sur l’analogie que sur la logique, sur la résolution des problèmes concrets que sur la définition des concepts, sur l’exemplarité que sur la démonstration, sur la fluidité de l’esprit que sur la solidité des arguments. [/ul][/quote]

One can see this in what China considers it’s classical texts. Chinese philosophy before officla history–what fragments we can find of it–isn’t so different from the pre-Socratics (and both fascinating). Ever since China became China, people have been concerned about governing, virtue, piety, and peace. New knowledge and new disciplines haven’t developed like in the west. Sovereign rule conquered the hundred schools. And still, how capable is the average Chinese of original thought? It’ll probably take thousands of years to grow out of it and grow somewhere else.

If you guys can read French, I highly recommend the online collection here. As it’s already been hinted at, the Chinese are not quite the best people equipped to analyze their culture. Many of the masters of sociology and other social and human sciences are French. It’s not surprising the best occidental sociological sinology is probably by the French. Like Granet is the only sinologist to be trained by someone as important like Durkheim. And Maspero, a statue of his father sits not too far from the College de France, France’s most prestigious school.

–

I forgot the name of that guy who formulated some paradox? He wasn’t sure why China never developed a great sophistication in the sciences. Not surprising. With a culture where court nobles were selected by how well they memorized the classics, who has time to think?

9

Gary, have you read “Chinese Astrology” by Paul Carus, 1907? It’s not directly about numbers, although there’s a little bit tangentially related. It’s not exactly philosophy either, but touches on various forms of mysticism, the elements, fengshui, and a cross-cultural comparison of zodiacs. For some reason, I thought of you last time I saw it on my shelf. It was reprinted by as a cheap paperback by Open Court, La Salle Illinois; ISBN 0-87548-155-8.

10

I haven’t yet Dragonbones. I’ll take a look at it sometime.

My reading in Chinese history and philosophy hasn’t been that in depth. I’ve spent most of my time with european philosophers.

Except for a few classics and stuff said about the Chinese by people like Jung and Nietzsche, I haven’t looked into Chinese philosophy much. The recent serious interest is because of Granet. He also made Levi-Strauss take in interest in kinship. Where would we be without him? :slight_smile:

I’ve been thinking of grad shool in Chinese philosophy. First I have to go from HSK level 0 to 7.

11

[quote=“gary”]
[snip…]

And still, how capable is the average Chinese of original thought?

[snip…]

I forgot the name of that guy who formulated some paradox? He wasn’t sure why China never developed a great sophistication in the sciences. Not surprising. With a culture where court nobles were selected by how well they memorized the classics, who has time to think?[/quote]

I think you’ll reach a very different conclusion if you were to read the works by Joseph Needham as recommended by Feiren. Chinese scientific and mathematical acheivements were beyond those of Europeans well after “China became China” (which I assume you mean after the Qin dynasty was established with an unified China). This is simply a widely accepted fact. China’s golden age came during the Tang and Song dynasties while Europe was in its “Dark Ages”. According to Needham, China during its heyday (Tang and Song) was “far in advance of contemporary Europe”. However, China’s dominance in these fields began its decline in the 15th century.

I would recommend reading “When China Ruled the Seas” by Louise Levathes. It documents the voyages of sea captain Zheng He. Zheng He, in 1405, commanded a fleet of 240 ships and 27400 sailors and explored the world from South East Asia, perhaps Austrialia (inconclusive), to India, to Mecca, to the Red Sea, and to East Africa. He brought giraffes back to China as an imperial gift.

The book also covers the last great engineering feats by the Chinese during dynastic times. The ships that Zheng He sailed on were more than twice the size of what Columbus sailed on and had advances not seen in Europe until many decades or centuries later.

Things came crashing down when the Ming Emperor Xuande closed off China to the outside world and decided that scientific pursuits were no longer worthwhile. He ordered the destruction of all of Zheng He’s fleet and decreed ocean sailing and exploration to be illegal.

This, as many would argue, was the turning point in China’s history and thus began its decline. However, just as Japan was able to adapt and catch up to the world in a short period of time during the 20th century, the same IMHO will be true for China as well. The recent launch of manned space flight by China, while not original, is nevertheless a glimpse of what’s to come.

12

[quote=“sjcma”][quote=“gary”]
[snip…]

And still, how capable is the average Chinese of original thought?

[snip…]

I forgot the name of that guy who formulated some paradox? He wasn’t sure why China never developed a great sophistication in the sciences. Not surprising. With a culture where court nobles were selected by how well they memorized the classics, who has time to think?[/quote]

I think you’ll reach a very different conclusion if you were to read the works by Joseph Needham as recommended by Feiren. Chinese scientific and mathematical acheivements were beyond those of Europeans well after “China became China” (which I assume you mean after the Qin dynasty was established with an unified China).[/quote]

:slight_smile: I do not necessarily mean the idea of science that’s very American or the one that’s become in fashion in the last few hundred years. Science is after all knowing. The Germans still use the word science in this way: it’s a body of knowledge. In the human and social sciences, in the ability to study ourself, where has China gone? Why didn’t something like the Hundred Schools continue? Is China like Europe, with dozens and dozens of philosophers who influenced all fields of knowledge and help to create many new ones?

Think of political philosophy. How much more variation has there been in Europe than in China? How much of a greater difference has there been in people asking what is truth? Philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge. Every western science grew out of it. Occidental philosophy is the question, what is. I’m not sure if this exists in China. Is it a tendenacy of Chinese philosophers to go back to the beginning and redefine everything?

But I would like to explore China more. I will check out that book someday. For now, I don’t see much change in China’s piety of thought. What other culture invented myths of their ancestors like the Three August Ones and Five Sovereigns, people who ruled and lived together in perfect virtue? And who else worships myths like this?

13

gary, you bring up very interesting questions. And I would rather be impressed with myself if I could actually answer you. However, any attempt at an answer at this juncture would simply expose my tremendous ignorance on these topics.

To give you an idea of the intellectual depth of the book that I’m currently perusing (kindly provided by Dragonbones), the title starts with “bopomo”. :wink:

There’s nothing better I’d like than to win the lottery and go back to school and get a couple of Pig-Headed Degrees. But alas, too much to know, too little money…

However, I do enjoy reading your posts.

14

I can’t really say I know the answers either. I’m going mostly by the little I’ve read about China and instinct. I’m also Chinese American and might have some vendetta against Chinese culture. :slight_smile: I’m trying to be better. Ressentiment is not the way. Finding writers who have, instead of giving praise, tried to figure out has helped me a lot. I kind of have a guide to start with.

I’m not sure how I’m going to afford the necessary Chinese school and then who knows how many years of grad school. I can probably make it to China for a start and figure it out from there. I have some distant relatives I’ve never met so that helps. I was thinking Shanghai but it could be Beijing.

15

Ressentiment is almost always there in various shades of intensity among the Western-raised but ethnically-Chinese population. A small minority, of course, have rather strong ressentiment and go as far as to adamantly refuse using chopsticks or acknowledge their ancestry. These are also the ones that are proud to be wearing the “banana” badge while amongst the Chinese but preferred to be viewed as “white” when among the locals.

Of course, I’m not talking about you in particular, gary. It’s just some of my own personal empirical observations rather than a scientific survey.

Are you pursuing this line of study to satisfy your own curiosity and perhaps understand your own ressentiment? As any typical Chinese parent will ask, “how are you going to feed yourself?” :wink:

16

Ressentiment is almost always there in various shades of intensity among the Western-raised but ethnically-Chinese population. A small minority, of course, have rather strong ressentiment and go as far as to adamantly refuse using chopsticks or acknowledge their ancestry. These are also the ones that are proud to be wearing the “banana” badge while amongst the Chinese but preferred to be viewed as “white” when among the locals.

Of course, I’m not talking about you in particular, gary. It’s just some of my own personal empirical observations rather than a scientific survey.
[/quote]

:slight_smile: Check out that article. Nietzsche’s idea of ressentiment is much more complex. Anyone who does not have the ability to create a civilization thru domination, people that are dominated, create morality from ressentiment. Powerless people, slaves create their world view from an inability to change the world. They re-evaluate their beliefs and create new ones. Like Christianity. It is a slave morality. Jewish people turned their slavery and suffering into a virtue. Suffering is even the highest of virtues.

Other forms of morality like Chinese comes after conquering. Their idea of good is created perhaps as an afterthought. They didn’t create a concept of evil and from that, good. They loved conquering and said it was good. Xiaoxin, have a small heart, as elders (lao) say. :slight_smile:

The values and gods of suffering people (Jews and Christians) differ greatly from warriors (Greeks, Romans, and Chinese).

When I said I feel ressentiment, I mean I’ve spent too much time thinking about things like the other or equality. That’s not the sign of a powerful and creative spirit.

For that other resentment, yeah. But at least I got a lifelong obsession for knowledge. Freud said being Jewish was one of the reasons for his thirst of knowledge. Maybe never satisfied. Ah well.

One great thing about Nietzsche is he tried to be a psychologist to philsophers. He asked why do these people want truth so much? Why do they care so much about things like ethics? He realized it was always a question of themselves.

Are you pursuing this line of study to satisfy your own curiosity and perhaps understand your own ressentiment? As any typical Chinese parent will ask, “how are you going to feed yourself?” :wink:[/quote]

:slight_smile: The goal is to teach and write. Maybe I’ll end up homeless in China for my life. who knows.

“Can an ass be tragic? To perish under a burden one can neither bear nor throw off?.. The case of the philosopher.” - Nietzsche

17

Gary,

Ironically, since you mention or someone did European philosophy (aside from the Greeks), European philosophers of the Enlightenment period were surprisingly much influenced by old Chinese philosophy when Europeans started bringing back Chinese texts, etc. I thought I read, for e.g. that Rousseau or Locke was one (can’t recall exactly).

As for why the difference in thought? European thought owes its foundations to the Greeks. Without them, who knows? But why the Greeks and not the Chinese? My very brief guess is that it had to do with world view and order. The greeks had very human gods with human failings (e.g. adultery, murder, theft). The Chinese worshipped an abstract heaven, had roots in shamanism (leading to scapulimancy), as well as worshipped ancestors (not that the greeks didn’t, but it didn’t endure and does not seem as pervasive). Both of course worshipped heroes, but the Greeks had much more variety. The Chinese had mainly culture heroes: he who brings civilization, he who engineers flood protection, he who cultivates millet and husbandry. The Greeks had few culture heroes. They had Prometheus, a titan who brought fire to men. But they also had Herakles, Achilles, Odysseus. Seems that Chinese weren’t concerned about these things (or as much, or didn’t survive). The only martial hero I think is big is Yue Fei, and that’s much later. The earliest one I can think of is the Archer who shot down the 9 suns cuz it was too hot. But he’s obscure, and has little to speak of.
I think in this kind of atmosphere, it led the Greeks to question the universe, what is an atom, what is wind, what are we made of. For the Chinese, questions about the physical world were irrelevant. It only mattered if they could make use of it. Both delved into human nature e.g whether human nature was good or evil. Crudely simplified, the Chinese cared only about how to order things from ancestor (past) to present to future. The Greeks questioned the order, perhaps because they were not satisfied with it. who knows why.

18

I believe that a more accurate comparison is made by noting that historically speaking, CHINA at its strongest probably could not have defeated the United States in some battle scenario in a pre-WWI era of the 20th century.

19

here’s a quote from Needham’s Science and Civilization in China (Vol 7):

Marcel Granet asks rhetorically:

This (Chinese) thought which seems in essence picturesque and musical and which expresses itself in any case through rhythm and concrete symbols, what can it achieve when applied to a domain where precise and distinct formulations as well as explicit judgments are required? What kind of sincerity can there be in a kind of thought which takes not lived experience but tradition as a point of departure?..What power would the principles of contradiction and of causality have – without which scientific thought can hardly proceed or be expressed? (Quelques particularités de la langue et de la pensée chinoises)

…

Marcel Granet…brings out with admirable verve and eloquence some profound doubts concerning the adequacy of the Chinese language as a medium of science. As a highly intelligent and thoughtful observer of Chinese thought he deserves to be taken seriously. His challenge needs to be answered in philological detail. It would not do summarily to dismiss Granet’s intuitions. These intuitions have, in any case, been profoundly influential ever since they were published.

The negative perception of the Chinese language is graphically brought out by J.E. Renan (1923 to 1982):

Is not the Chinese language with its inorganic and imperfect structure, the reflection of the aridity of genius and heart which characterizes the Chinese race? Sufficing for the wants of life, for the technicalities of the manual arts, for a light literature of low standard, for a philosophy which is only the expression, often fine but never elevated, of common sense, the Chinese language excluded all philosophy, all science, in the sense in which we understand these words. God has no name in it, and metaphysical matters are expressed in it only by round-about forms of speech. (Renan, 1889)

However, one point must be added at this stage in order to avoid all misunderstandings. To the extent that the preceding volumes of Science and Civilization in China have shown that the Chinese were rather good at some parts of science, they have also shown that one can use Literary Chinese to do science. If Marcel Granet had known more about the Chinese scientific tradition he would, I like to think, have expressed himself in a different, less abrasive way. I also believe that if he had known more about the precise syntactic structure of Classical Chinese and the very subtle semantic and syntactic rules governing the use of Classical Chinese grammatical particles, he might have shown a little more respect for the articulatory power of that language.

There still remains a crucial philosophical point which is not answered so simply. In this case, the issue has been raised more forcefully by Georg Freidrich Wilhelm Hegel:

When we speak of the Chinese sciences…we see that they enjoy very great public admiration and support from the government…Thus on the one hand the sciences are highly honored and cultivated, but on the other hand these sciences lack the free space of inner reflection and the properly scientific interest that would make it into a scientific endeavour. A free and ideal realm of the spirit has no place here, and what is called scientific here is of an empirical nature and is essentially in the service of what is useful for the state and for the needs of the state and the individuals. The nature of the written language in itself is a great hindrance for the development of the sciences; or rather vice versa since the true scientific interest is lacking, the Chinese have no better instrument for the articulation and communication of thoughts (Hegel, where?)

…

Hegel may have been wrong. His doubts may not have been very well-informed. But I think Hegel’s doubts were profound and significant … none of the achievements affect the crucial observation that the ‘Chinese had sciences but no science, no single conception or word for the overarching sum of them all,’ as nathan Sivin (1982) put it in this admirably clear paper ‘Why the scientific revolution did not take place in China – or didn’t it?’ …

From the early 20th century onwards there have been a number of studies that have a bearing on this subject. Juen Hung-Chun’s ‘The reason for China’s lack of science’ (1915) was the first important paper. … In 1922 there followed Feng Yu-lan Why China has no Science - An Interpretation of the History and Consequences of Chinese Philosophy. Then there was Homer H Dubs’ ‘The Failure of the Chinese to Produce Philosophical Systems’ (1929) and Derk Bodde’s ‘The Attitude towards Science and Scientific Method in Ancient China’ (1936).

then he goes on to say he’ll deal with these concerns.

–

I’m kind of on the side of Hegel and Granet. I don’t doubt that some form of science (and the sciences) did develop in China. Yet I think tradition has done a great deal to hinder it’s development.

How kids are raised in schools? Ever see Chinese in the workplace? How much has tradition hindered the ability of Chinese to think?

20

I believe that a more accurate comparison is made by noting that historically speaking, China at its strongest probably could not have defeated the United States in some battle scenario in a pre-WWI era of the 20th century.[/quote]
China, at its strongest militarily (vis-a-vis countries of the same period) occurred many centuries ago. Of course it is not going to defeat an US army of the early 20th century where weapons like machine guns have already been invented.

Or am I totally missing your point?

Why do you think this is a more accurate comparison? And why is the word “China” bolded?