Confucianism: The Family and the Government

Confucianism have strongly influenced the cultures and governance of Japan,Korea,Vietnam, Singapore and many others(maybe in South-East and Far East Asian regions).

What made Confucianism so successful and relevant in our modern era was the ethics of personal life and government's principles were mainly be promoted.

Familial piety and respect for authority are the main principles of Confucianism.

Is Confucianism receptive among the nations in the Western Hemisphere or Western World to adopt some or many of the principles of family life/piety and good governance. These principles do function well in the Eastern hemisphere of the world.

"Is Confucianism receptive among the nations in the Western Hemisphere or Western World to adopt some or many of the principles of family life/piety and good governance."

Western cultures have so embraced the Enlightenment concept of the sovereignty of the individual that the authoritarianism (or the communalism) of Confucian principles is nearly anathema. Nothing like that is going to catch on in the West.

Interesting question, though.

I will m ostly echo #2

I would say that among the governments cited (Singapore, Vietnam), Confucianism is less relevant than the coercive power of the State. Including China on your list, I would also venture to say it is not governmental principles/ethics that were promoted but patronage networks (re: institutionalized corruption) that reinforce 'respect' and a system of oligarchy and one party rule.

I do not think I would classify Japan as Confucian although the transfer of ideas from China included Confucian principles. I think it is important to remember that Japan was a feudal society for centuries, and that system of governance/state control reinforced the culture more than the ideal of Confucianism from the populance. I would also cite that while from the outside Japan (and Korea) look like wonderful societies, there are also deep currents of discontent (among individuals, in their literature) on how their society is structured and what it values.

On the idea of respect for authority I would also note the long history of violence, war, and civil conflict in 'Confucian' societies. Good governance and rule of law have often been in short supply. Again I point to levels of corruption and would also mention the lack of representation in Vietnam or Singapore. One party rule (or benevolent dictatorship or whatever you may call it) may be effective in enacting policies, but ultimately rely on a system of closed thinking and coercion that stifles innovative policy thinking.

While you can say these values function well in the Eastern hemisphere, I would ask who do they function for?

I think in the West (in the U.S. in any case) we are more likely to see continuing backlash against the older baby boomer generation if anything.

Confucianism is based on harmony, in the case of Ruler(Government)/Subject(Population) were expected to govern fairly and in the image of (heaven), and in turn the people where to serve and respect them.

During his time, Confucius was living in a period of upheaval which influenced so much of his ethics or principles in an attempt to generate the basis for a balanced society or government.

Confucius upheld that a ruler/government should be a pivot of calmness around the control of the rights to govern, and that a good leader could always expect the loyalty and support of the people.

When there is an obvious,clear authority figure in this case of ruler/subject relationship, there is a mutual responsibility and respect between both sides.

There will be harmony, and law and order is uphold.

On one hand, one-party rule have many barriers to the people resulting "closed thinking" and no open consultations for discussion on many government policies before implementation.

Who wants an autocratic government? There will be unrest in the country.

Seems like many autocrats enjoy having autocratic governments =)
Their ability to co-opt other parts of society or to repress others has worked pretty well.
I'm sure they prefer manageable unrest/repression as opposed to being voted out of office.

A cursory glance at Chinese history would show a decided lack of harmony with many regimes lacking the consent of the governed. You could cite a lack of responsibility on the government's part or respect on the part of the people, but I would say that perhaps then Confucianism isn't the underlying philosophy or glue binding the governed with their rulers, but instead a justification the rulers give to allow themselves power over the governed. Certainly if it was a stronger cultural force it would ensure stability/harmony, but instead there is a constant history of conflict.

I would say today consent from the people in the countries cited does not come from some underlying cultural characteristic, but on the ability of governments to provide economic growth. People trade freedom for security and growth (Singapore), and many are not willing to complain too loudly as long as their standard of living increases. I think its less about respect and responsibility driven by culture and more so these factors driven by economics.

I think cultural frameworks for viewing things can be interesting, but can also over simplify complex societies and motivations. Of course, the framework I am using (economics), can also suffer from the same thing.

Isn't the problem with Confucianism is that it's not philosophy? I mean, you just can't throw around undefined terms like harmony and law without rigorously analyzing them. You can't build a rational system when the core concepts are poorly defined or undefined. I would assert that harmony or law are meaningless concepts unless they're defined in reference to some good. In turn, that ideal of good must itself be rationally defended as well. I'm not seeing the plausibility of the system since it contains no serious discussion of metaphysics or epistemology. That is, Western philosophy aims to be comprehensive - the ideal is something like Aristotle, who understands the grounding of all science and knowledge and puts them into one coherent rational system (or, at least, tries to).

metaphysics or epistemology

Please. Enumerate and define every core concept there.

6> "you just can't throw around undefined terms like harmony and law without rigorously analyzing them"

Your impression seems to be that Confucius threw around concepts and that thinkers in that tradition continue the fun. My knowledge of Confucian literature is pretty light, but one way to read The Analects is as a discursive definition of the important terms ('concepts' might be better) by considering concrete cases. Rather than throwing around concepts, the work takes great pains to describe proper usage. But the important terms don't translate well into English -- "Harmony", for instance, is better understood as "Harmonious Action" because the concept cannot be divorced from action in the world, but we accustomed to the western method habitually conceive "Harmony" (for instance) as something distinct from a harmonious act.

I think you're right that Confucianism is not philosophy, if philosophy only means the creation and explication of the rational self-consciousness that began with the Greeks, but we usually take the word to mean something more like "how to live one's life" and Confucianism, as well as other traditions, fit that looser meaning just fine.

Confucianism does offer a very different set of notions from western philosophy, but I believe that was the original posters point.

Edited to correct a typo in the last paragraph: "does offer...", not "dies offer...".

#8
Yes. Thank you.

#8
Just read that Charles Saunders Peirce is among your favourite philosophers.
He is my favourite American philosopher. Iʻve never understood why his writings are not better known, even if, unlike Confucius, imperial minds were no match for his philosophy. It comes as a great relief that one American (apart from Josiah Royce), T.S. Eliot found him provocative and reportedly was going to write a Harvard dissertation on his philosophy, which is very, very modern and absorbs outlooks upon the future too, so encompassing is it -- as Confuciusʻ ethics were.

8> "Just read that Charles Saunders Peirce is among your favourite philosophers."

Yes! I also wonder why he is not better known. He's certainly influential, probably more so in Europe (Umberto Eco is a fan, for instance.) He is difficult to read because he stretches language by insisting on embodied thought, and that may be explanation enough.

I read your profile -- is the "Creole Hawaiʻi English" edition of the Bible that you mention Da Jesus Book, published by Wycliffe?

#11
DA JESUS BOOK is not published by Wycliffe but by the Summer Institute of Linguistics etc. That is a
"Fundamentalist" camp (to standard ones), the objective in linguistics being eventually to add to their religious fold through reading and frame referencing life through the Bible.

The Head of Da Jesus Book. Grimes, is a Linguistic scholar, Cornell educated, and so open in strategy to Who Gets To Read. MANY do, although there are leaders among them (all "local") and Grimesʻ head starters. There seems to be no way to "evaluate" the work in a standard way-- speaking takes context and situation specific set ups. so the Creole one hears depends actually on READING Passages OUT LOUD, not silently. The SOUND system carries heavy emotional investment of cultural rapport, etc. in the proselytizing process. The experience is family like, relatively more intimate than most conversion strategies -- i.e. the ʻohana way (clan, family which is extended, not nuclear). For immediate, personal, one-on-one, minute by minute correctable communication etc.

An Oxford linguistic friend and I went to Grimesʻ OPening celebration for the publication of the book. (I met Grimes on the plane, interesting to say --he coming from NY and I from Penn and both of us into Hawaiian language etc. Then we discovered we were neighbours -- and still are, but scarcely meet any more.) When his Readers read the "Pidgin English" (Creole), both Suzanne and I were taken aback. Pidgin has a short history but increasingly complicated depth. So in the span of 200 yrs., Hawaiian was the major floor language, then as immigrants arrived, English; then a contest of Chinese and English, then Japanese and English etc., not to mention that the British influence was heavy with the Royalty.

Grimesʻ readers then recorded the Bible with super basic but loose English syntax flavoured with every immigrant language THOUGHT HABITS stroking words, rhythms in pronunciation, and sounds. Visual readings are easier to understand (adjusting). Aural may be a problem, much more than, say, American English retains Northern, Southern, Western, Mid-Western distinctions when spoken today.

Sorry for this long answer. But it is a chance to put it down,somewhere, or never do it. Iʻve been trying to interest people in Literature AND ORATURE. Hard work but great fun for any who enjoy bi- and tri-lingual exchanges.

12>
A cousin who grew up in Hilo brought back Da Jesus Book from a visit for me a few years ago. My copy is published by Wycliffe but it is Grimes' work, or seems to be. He isn't mentioned anywhere in the book but many references cite it as his.

The book only works when read aloud and it took a little effort, for someone who has never heard any spoken Creole, to discover the rhythm (or probably "a" rhythm) but then it takes on some magnificence. No doubt I'm missing most of the nuance, still I enjoy reciting it from time to time.

Having pried into your life a little, I see you've given considerable thought over many years to what you called "orature", which I take to mean a kind of discursive, embodied reason residing in oral traditions. No wonder, assuming I'm even close in this characterization, you like Peirce, as a champion of practical reason.

#13
"I see you've given considerable thought over many years to what you called "orature", which I take to mean a kind of discursive, embodied reason residing in oral traditions. No wonder, assuming I'm even close in this characterization, you like Peirce, as a champion of practical reason."

1. Yes, you were right -Wycliffe is the publisher of Da Pidgin Bible. It is the publishing House of the Summer Institute of Linguistics -- in some way suggestively associated with Cornell, perhaps because Joe Grimes is a Cornell grad. I do seriously doubt that there is a formal connection, although I donʻt know why not exactly. Oh yes, its religious conservatism. And Oh no, also. That religious conservatism serves linguistics well, getting oral societies into written form, much as the Univ.of Hawaiʻi ex. Albert Schutz/Schuetz (this computer lost its accent keyboard) doing a Fijian dictionary and Ward Goodenough ( Penn) doing a Kosrae dictionary (Schuetz from Linguistics; Goodenough from Anthropology (culture, art, linguistics). Yes, youʻre right: Charles Saunders Peirceʻs philosophy easily embraces all disciplines --i.e (which are after all merely academic territorial bounds for clarity, definitions, and integrity). That is human life.
Which is why I donʻt understand why he is not much known and where known not much engaged in.
I think - after all, if I came out of the bare Pacific and others from continents instead of islands, why donʻt they "get" him? Heʻs philosophically the richest continental, discipline/subject wise; others like Wm. James are rich, too, but take one discipline (psych) and carve the world up with those specs. John Dewey uses Education (childhood), covers shorter time limits but cuts wonderfully sharply, dovetailing Montessori but in an American and male way.
But I really want to get back to Confucius.

#13
"The book only works when read aloud and it took a little effort, for someone who has never heard any spoken Creole, to discover the rhythm (or probably "a" rhythm) but then it takes on some magnificence. No doubt I'm missing most of the nuance, still I enjoy reciting it from time to time."

"Only works when read aloud" is what everybody who speaks Pidgin English (Hawaiʻi and Hawaiian Creole) says too. I canʻt stand READING the DA BIBLE. Itʻs a travesty --for the reasons you give.

Thatʻs the influence and effect of the Oral. What happened to Confucius -- on the lips not only of Magistrates and Royalty (you see it its effect in the poems of 12thc. wife of a Magistrate, Li-Chiʻang Chao, translated by Kenneth Rexroth, but also on those of ordinary people everywhere who read bulletins but not books. Mao-Tse Tung uprooted Chinese civilization/s, obviously; but didnʻt kill that order established as the Premiere Social Good one hears at birthdays after long life and prosperity: posterity. Why do Asians (from China, Vietnam, Thailand) stand at the top of the science High School Honors List in Math and the Sciences? At home, the Confucian ethics (parent to child duties And REVERSE) hasnʻt changed,despite economic, linguistic etc. pressures in the U.S. not against success but not exactly With it, either. Like Deweyʻs Narrowed Slice (education), Confucian ethics addresses the INDIVIDUAL, but has to be present as you say it "embodied." Thatʻs How ORALITY moves, works.

Zimbabwe had a superb civilization -- without writing, I think. (Am I right?) Writing exists in art, too, as Assyrian, Egyptian etc. hieroglyphics and Mayan glyphs etc. So HOW a child learns ORDER, e.g. Confucian (Mencius, etc., and Mencius the Pacifist, even more than Confucius) for our insightful social conscious free advertisers of Make Love Not War Baby Boomers, is and is not necessarily a first order question regarding WAY. But ORDER itself is a first level Quest. bianjungwi, says the government authoritarianism of old, wonʻt come back --yes, not as it was, but in, well, as
in the Law of the Conservation of Matter (Lavoisier) and Energy, we learned afterward -- only the Forms change as Faraday said, Einstein divined Newtonʻs "gravity" to be in fact on malleable grids, not rigid, and Bohrʻs Quantum mechanics refined that line of conceptualizing: (not only do Forms get exchanged like Gas to Liquid to Solid and the way one thinks about it, as well as "how we know/think about it";in particle phsyics versus astrophysics theory/experiment) but they CaN EXIST IN TWO AND MORE "places at the same space/time" (mathematically confirmed in String Theory by,as Ed Whitten demostrated it, as in eleven dimensions). . . which is applicable today in everything, As Peirce contended (and is not heard).
Confucian-"ism" exists. It goes by other names. And if Wittgenstein threw philosophy over because he found NOTHING could be taken as TRUE OR FALSE (propositions vs. Reality (more than action and less - if you think Body/Mind is separate) . . . and went into the Swiss Alps to teach children . . . we have left: "philosophy," "ethics;" "Confucian," takes words, "embodied" as ORALITY. insists and. as Written societies, even in the midst of its enormous, remarkable achievements, would do well to remember. ? (The semiotic convention of writing does not allow me to make this conclusively a period or a question mark. It is Both.

>15 leialoha: "But ORDER itself is a first level Quest..."

I wonder about that. "Predictability" might be, but knowledge of the way things are by themselves (I mean the way things hang together, not things' individual attributes) can provide predictability as well as can putting things in assigned places. The Confucian tradition would have us always defer to the "exemplary man" (it's always a man, isn't it?) with the assumption that he has a hold on how things are, but in that tradition, maybe not in the Analects, the exemplary man is identified by wealth and status. So the tradition preserves the status quo, no matter its nature -- harmonious or not, just or not.

Trusting the exemplary man (is he actually a sage or is he just wearing a sage's robe?) is less risky when you consider his words stripped of his authority and dependent on their own. Which is Literary.

Wittgenstein did his best work after returning from his school-teaching lark. Also, I think the current version of string theory requires 13 dimensions rather than 11, but still I get your point. Well, I think I do.

#16
"The Confucian tradition would have us always defer to the "exemplary man" (it's always a man, isn't it?) with the assumption that he has a hold on how things are, but in that tradition, maybe not in the Analects, the exemplary man is identified by wealth and status. So the tradition preserves the status quo, no matter its nature -- harmonious or not, just or not."
*********
1.
I think your reading of Confucius is very modern, individual rather than society centered, and anti-"tradition."
What you say in your full post I do not believe is mainly true, both about what was believed of Confucianism among those who followed him in practice and of tradition being a blinder so that it went without criticism.

The Confucianists I knew were scholars and not above pitting other philosophers for contrast against each other in philosophy, or religion, history, Psychology, even "literature." Like many scholars and artists, they suffered privations too. In Confucian times, it seemed common. The 12th c. poet Li-Chiʻang Chaoʻs life showed how, wealthy and influential as her family was, as well as that of her husbandʻs, she lived mainly a MAGISTRATE WIFE"S LIFE, which was alone, MOST of their "married life," which was also most of the years he was never allowed to return home. She had to shift for herself, for decades and ended in extreme poverty, old, forgotten. In her youth, she and her husband were famous; she, more famous than he; but together, Confucians. His duties took him away because it was a RULE that JUSTICE demanded the Magistrate not hold court in his own home district. And so distant were his posts, he was virtually a stranger when he did return home, only to be sent back to another post far, far away. She never learned when he died, or where. Fairly early, the Tartars invaded . . .after which, revolutions appear to have been the order of the day. Such times do demand a kind of SELF DISCIPLINE that CONFUCIUS taught was necessary for the survival of the body social. The human adherents themselves become "victims" of their own self-discipline, not merely the Courtʻs or the "Government" or Lord in Charge of the Provinces over which the Magistrates were set to rule. Chinese Opera is full of such storiesʻ hardships -- but there is also PRIDE in the Excellence of the Ideal. Tradition lay with that. It was liable to criticism by rival contentions/contenders. Not all Emperors were Confucian, however. Some were ruled by their mistresses, in that the Mistresses held much power in different ways from that of her husband but equal in effect, perhaps like that of the wife of Mao Tse Tung, said to have been The Gang of Five, etc., AND CONVICTED as such. etc. So Confucian"ism" was not everybodys cup of tea -- and was some personsʻ poison; but as ethics, it is among the worldʻs most excellent, if not prevailing today. The half dozen Confucianists I knew through friends and family were Sun Yat Sen and then Chiang-Kai Shek (i.e. anti-Mao) followers; mainly they were modest, thrifty, of course well educated. Only two spoke of having LOST much in leaving China -- their scrolled paintings, ceramic pottery of museum value. A relative by marriage was a famous linguist at Yale at one time was considered "a Confucian gentleman." He was intellectually very keen, but, to me, quite in awe of him, extremely humble and kind. The film THE LAST EMPEROR is interesting -- Confucian(ism) was virtually over-ridden by the life style of the wealthy and powerful (in name, by style). So there is always a Sliding Rule of judgement in operation. etc., straight into Taoism . . and on.

For HISTORY, the Chinese traditonally had the TRAVELLING OPERATIC PRODUCTIONS, much like the Mediaeval Theatrical productions on wheels that travelled throughout Europe to stir the faithful into greater works and prayer. The productions stayed in the villages for months. People learned their historical cultural names from these shows. I saw, for several years, quite a few of the Operatic productions produced, I was told (and I think true in part) in Hong Kong -- shown in Boston at the Stewart St. Theatre. Later, at Smith, I wrote a paper on it. The FRENCH have the best coverage; the Americans, pittance -- so unaware of other theatres than our own were we, and in some ways still are, INCLUDING among the great work done throughout Europe, for decades (we block their art out, from our TV screens and computer selection offerings) even the "poorest" somehow roughly taken also as the least cultivated? I never understood it, except as someone put it because we are fascinated with"navel gazing." Not altogether true, Iʻd say (our young people are very alert to many multi-scenes in multi-tasking modes my generation never dreamed ever possible), but others agree. (The Secretary of the Swedish Nobel Prize Award Committee once said something like that -- mentioned by Ilya Kuminski in his Introduction to C. Wimanʻs translation of Osip Mandelstamʻs poems.) Be that as it may, we are also spoiled -- excusable only for a second, perhaps, because wealth is rather new to us. NOt excusable because weʻre fast getting OLD! OLD! OLIGARCHIC! Not wise, which we should be, if there were time to sift? Was it G.B. Shaw or Santayana who said: He who fails to learn history is doomed to repeat it. Weʻre so busy MAKING history, we have no time for HISTORY.

(The U.S. Supreme Court has just decide that the Wealthy may virtually buy all the political congressmen it wishes to lead the country into One Percent Rich and Ninety-Nine Percent Homeless-Poor-Sick-Ignorant.
We could use an American adaptation of Confucian ethics/Order. But the Young despise the Elders. Well they may: the young died (and poor) died fighting for the Rich in Iraq (trashing Assyria, Babylonia), Afghanistan, and as I see it, coming . . .in this YEAR OF THE PACIFIC (it makes me sick) -- China. And the Japanese are standing close, close . . .to reap the rewards. NANKING is not in their history texts but a conquest. Well, if the Viet Cong, which is no China, can beat us without bombs and planes, so may China, with a Will; but I am hopeful the same partying warriors that flew into Iraq and continued into Afghanistan may find China a different animal/beast/evolved human being species that hopefully wonʻt wreak revenge on us for our all too bullying ways in history. This wonderful country every day is being tested. To stay "on top." One of our brightest congressional lights was Sen. Fullbright; he wrote a book that should be reissued post-haste: THE ARROGANCE OF POWER. For my small valley neighbourhood is filling up with military dependents . . .from the West and with immigrants from the East and weʻr digging down, only 4 feet below he surface, thereʻs Water. We need a Confucius.
And scientists like Oppenheimer and Einstein and Emily Meitner who can investigate Nature and prevent their findings from destroying the earth.

2.
Asians are not individualistic, which Iʻm sure you know from practical life ways of the Chinese whether in business steeped Hong Kong or in the U.S.A. where the Chinese are not more welcomed than, say, any other non-Caucasian like the Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Hawaiians etc., each of which has their own centres of ethical gravity no doubt different from each other as from Confucian and Christian or Secularist, at least culturally speaking. I believe the SOCIETAL centre of gravity in the ancient cultures and those continuing today is due to their sense of Differences and need of each group to control itself with or apart and/or both for peace just to exist in self-productive ways. The war lords are a good example of the group mentality, like the family systems -- counted even, in my family, as amounting (I was taught) of 10 Major Clan Names. I laughed at the number 10, but it is a good digit to stop at, to count, no matter how big or small. That number important to coordinate -- by whomever, in some fair manner. I think the wealth and social measures are subordinate to the Conception the Clans/Societies Hold themselves to. Confucius provided them with a SECULAR system; it did not dispute the gods e.g. the Wind Gods/Spirits of the 4 corners of the earth, etc. which are Forces of destruction(e.g. floods, dust storms) every year but also of relief seasonally (coolness in broiling mid-summer). I think Confucian-"ism" amounted to a SOCIAL ETHICS that held the Clan Heads down to the last child of the families to RESPECT the FORCES needed to advance as a group and in that or within that individuals -- rather than the other way around. It is the Modern West that inverts that order, most especially consciously since de Cartes, as our own view of the philosophy of history provides us schemes and rationales (handles to think about beliefs/reasoned ideals or the joined forms of both. In the "end" I donʻt think it matters which side one starts out from --the big Society through States/TRibes/Clans) or the Individual. These are the ends of two scales; they expand and contract as pressures force or allow. At the time of Confuciusʻ reign, the mode of rule was in Empires. So the ORGANIZATIONAL Unit most influential was most efficient to start the IDEAL PRACTICE and "Theory"/TEACHING at the top, which is where, of course the wealth and ʻhigh end" of the culture lay (for excellence of the arts, writing, learning, e.g., for which there was a tracking system that was CRITICAL, hence HISTORY. It is therefore to the CREDIT of the CONFUCIANS that on the practice side, they needed excellence, e.g. the formidable state EXAMINATIONS, and OPEN TO ALL. The curriculum including POETRY, PROVERBIAL WISDOM, GENEALOGICAL Lineages, MILITARY ACCOUNTS, GOVERNMENTAL RECORD KEEPING. It JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THE RESULT OF EXCELLENCE IS ELITE QUALITY (elite-ism is the excellence taken to extremes that ends with the opposite of what excellence and elite actually was intended and does at their cores mean. One of the most amazing histories the West should tell the way it was is this: the Vietcong were never conquered, despite having none of the offensive weapons the West/Americans had and used; and despite having very few defensive weapons but their own SENSE OF ORDER. IT BEGAN WITH THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE TO CONTROL THEMSELVES. THEIR COURAGE IS ASTOUNDING. The West does not celebrate it, being ashamed; but if it were honest, it should, because it demonstrates the powers of human intelligence and heart for social unity. Itʻs not only Viet Congese in victory. It is a tale of Human Victory. We are not honest about our losses. We are inbred to think "we" are the small geographical "we." Whereas "we" is everybody that benefits. I believe the Confucian ethics had much to do with the Viet Cong concept of CLAN and FAMILY. Our criticism of them (then o-- I donʻt know about the present) is that THEY are NOT LIKE US. We are so ego-centric, we have taken the place of our once all powerful God, and before that gods. We are myopic in the long term of things as Confucianism was not; and, concentrating onthe Present, the Material . . .hope SCIENCE is going to deliver the goods that will MELD US as one. SCIENCE will deliver much, and its fascinating beyond anything weʻve known and imagined, but only CHANCE will deliver a Societal, Communal sense of Unity by Science about ENDS.

In Confucianism, The Quality of Peace was the end of ORDER. ORDER was its own virtue. Caring followed. And so from the emperor to the last baby in the empire, the Confucian ethics held sway for centuries -- and remains in the form of our Asian young in the U.S. leading in the Sciences and Math, much as the Jews do, and somewhat as the less self-consciously Anglo/Caucasians may also. No matter what, there are times of stress when someone or many must yield some his/her due, rights, needs for those of others; but not forever . . .the pendulum is after all only good for those that conceived it. Time itself and Space are as much as mystery as ever. Confucianism was/is only ONE PARADIGM. But at least we can access it, from among our human options about A Good Life, for whomever may need it and want it and have it.

I think Charles Saunders Peirce would agree with the gist of this, take some/leave some. And of course, I donʻt expect what we have had for historical options are the end of options. The ridiculousness of WAR is that it destroys so many lives to revive, renew, and make newer options to live a GOOD LIFE .. or as the Chinese values are stated at New Year -- Longevity, Prosperity, Posterity. They are merely instrumental to the Real, Meaningful in human life, according to most of the history we have for reflection.

Excerpted from Google.
Confucianism in Modernity, Tradition re State/Family and Self, by ? DENTON, Ohio St.,doc/research pub. no date.

One of the two names I could not remember is (below) Lu-Xun. The other is of a young woman journalist, short story bio of her villageʻs breakup when the communists entered it and her family (leading family in the village) was forced to flee. In that flight, they lost track of each other. Her experiences followed. She died in terrible condition, under terrible conditions. (Short excerpt by Denton, follows below.)
*********
DENTON:
Confucian ideology was propagated; so home was instrumental in the formation of what Joseph Levenson has called traditional universal "culturalism." I want to stress that the centrality of guxiang to modern literature clearly has a lineage going back to traditional literature. (Dealing with traditional texts and modern texts in the same book is almost a taboo in my field, one that I am consciously trying to break so as to work against modernity's notion of its totalizing rupture with the past.) I will begin the book proper with a discussion of Lu Xun's "returning home" stories which set the parameters of the sub-genre and which embody many of the themes that will be developed in subsequent chapters. In a highly self-conscious way, these stories demonstrate the paradox of tradition and modernity as seen in the conflicted representation of guxiang, the dual attraction and repulsion of home. Interconnected with the representation of home in these stories is the problematic of self that is at the heart of Chinese modernity. The modern intellectual seeks to assert itself as a subject by leaving home (family, tradition, authority, selflessness) and yet is drawn inexorable back to it. The narrator in Lu Xun's "Zai jiulou shang" (Upstairs in the wineshop) is prototypical: his is caught in a homeless state between present and past, both homesick and sick of home. see Google full acct.