Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:45:16 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
But there is a fundamental conflict between Taoism and Confucianism. It
exists in their differing understanding of how words function.
ps: I need to re-subscribe to E-Pound. Does anyone have the code and the
address to which I send it handy? rk
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Michael Faherty wrote:
> Sorry about jumping into this discussion so late, but I remember a
> Chinese professor at the Pound Conference at Brantome -- whose name
> I've unforgiveably forgotten -- telling some of us, including Mary,
> that he could see no real conflict between Confucianism and Taoism,
> that the North had been basically Confucian and the South basically
> Taoist, but that Taoism had always been a part of Confucianism. He
> said the usual saying was that you were a Confucian until you left
> office and then you became a Taoist. And I suppose we could say that
> at Pisa Pound was no longer in office?
>
> Michael Faherty
>
|
|
|