Push / Pull

[nyuanshin]

If I had to pick one maxim by which to evaluate legislation, it would be "don't get in the way". But if I had to pick a second one, it would be "maintain price flexibility at all costs". The reason I bring this up is that Patri pointed me toward a good summary of the late great Mancur Olson's opus on how to keep your country from being rich. The

Comments

[nyuanshin]

You're not wrong in wondering. I think it would be hard to deny that the kind of philosophy that you get is a reflection of the underlying cognitive architecture; I've found it instructive here to engage in some comparative study of the old Greek, Indian, and Chinese traditions, which end up approaching a lot of the same problems with different methods. And certainly the kinds of ideas that become prominent depend on the cognitive ecology they're vying for. I don't think you can blame Confucius for Japanese conformism.

I'm actually inclined to put a lot of weight on population density and political stability as a factor here, in a different way than Diamond: more incentive to get along, less reward for rocking the boat. I'm given to understand that periods of stability in China went more or less like Olson would predict: the mandarin class was meritocratic in its way and at least had the sense not to abuse people too terribly, but still ultimately self-serving. You got ahead, financially and reproductively, by playing along.

Similar payoff conditions prevailed in Japan for slightly different reasons. The mystery is why Britain was different; I have to credit the singular success of the British Isles at being invaded by enterprising continentals multiple times, as opposed to Japan's relative impregnability.

[ihuitl]

By that same token, the early Taoist texts that espouse the opposite would have come from a group of Chinese with a different cognitive architecture (for whatever reason), then?

[nyuanshin]

Eh, I'm not sure about "opposite". Most Chinese managed to be both, and Buddhist; as you say, they were complementary. The methods are actually not that different -- just their emphasis on various aspects of life. But there's variation within populations as well as between -- when I read someone like Giambattista Vico versus Renee Descartes (or even Bertrand Russell versus Alfred Whitehead), I can tell I'm dealing with qualitatively different kinds of mind even though they also have a lot in common. Same thing with Chuangtze versus Confucius.

[ihuitl]

Well, opposite in being non-conformist and de-emphasizing (or even ridiculing) filial piety and human-created norms and taboos. I'm sure it is due to variance, be it cognitive or simply a different idea in the right person/place/time.

Ultimately, yes, many Chinese blended the various philosophies and many Taoist sects started piling on the institutionalization and taboo themselves as a result.

[nyuanshin]

Even comparing Indian vs Chinese Buddhism is instructive here: there's a difference in approach, though it's hard to put your finger on precisely.

[ihuitl]

To say nothing of Japanese Buddhism and its martial bent.