Propganda and Prophecy

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:06 pm

Split from what if thread had got into a lengthy debate. Title just a working one
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15347
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:30 am

So, Ive been busy playing Monster Hunter World which was why I have never replied to this post in a long time. Apologied for that. Cool with the title by the way and agree with your decision to split the post.

True. Shi Xie sometimes gets vassal state (though never officer of Wu) becuase of how weak he was to things like Wu incursions. As possibly embarrassing as Wu's "surrender" to Wei was, only someone on a wind up or really reading too much into wording rather then reality would really consider Wu a vassal state during that period

Yeah and nobody but you considers it as not part of gaining alliance when they did that. Sun Quan was a major warlord and the big power in the region whatever his technical rank

Oh sorry. Yang Feng was used in such a way off the top of my head

As a vassal state. Again, name one person who calls Shi Xie an officer of Wu? Because Zang Ba took miliatry service (unlike Shi Xie), he moved around as requested (unlike Shi Xie who remained at his base) rather remain at his powerbase, he took up positions at court and elsewhere. An officer takes, in effect, active service and pay. A vassal state is left on the throne (as it were), has to pay tribute and is dominated by the superior partner. One also doesn't get things like this
Although Bu Zhi was formally recognized as the Inspector of the province, the real power rested with Shi Xie. The former did not press the latter too hard; thus the two were able to live peacefully side by side for ten years until Bu Zhi was replaced by Lu Dai in AD 220. See Bu Zhi’s bio for further details.
about Zang Ba

Sun Quan in Jing 215 but there are very few factions post Chi Bi. Sorry when did Shi gentry urge them to submit? One guy did


Fine. Fair enough, you have convinced me that Shi Xie was not a surbodinate in the traditional sense of the word. But I still believe his not a junior alliance member or even a vassal but somewhere in between surbodinate and vassal.

One builds the sense of "well the family has always been a bit off", "Cao Cao was a great man of course but well, there is a reason he couldn't conquer the land." sort of thing. Was not the term used about Cao man zhuan "hostile propaganda?" Key word propaganda. Is it not in the sgz (as an annotations so around in Pei's time), is it not mentioned in works like Professor Rafe's (even if not in complimentary terms) annotation) so it works, it's words get spread around. Have you not used it's version of Yuan Zhong's death yourself which makes Shi Xie an assassin of good men? It has worked. I have no idea how widespread it was and when during three kingdoms itself.


Fair enough. I was just reading a askhistorians post where Cao Cao being a descendant of an Eunuch was held against him. But I still dont believe that this particular section of the Cao Man Zhuan was because of limiting Shi Xie's popularity with the local people.

I agree it isn't a perfect comparison

Oh they certainly portray the bad streak but, for example, the appraisal at the end of Cao Cao's sgz (granted two translations give variance so one of them is wrong) includes kindness while nothing tries to hide his ability to forgive old grievances like Wei Chong. Yet when they cover Cao Ang blame, it is on Cao Cao from those around at the time, the guy who blames Zhang Xiu is Cao Pi.


Then can you please stop using it?

I agree to all these. Im just saying once again, that Zhang Xiu was the vital reason behind Ang death due to him being the main dude behind the rebellion.

At this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Thank you, it is appreciated.

Ok there are two strands basically:

1) The "sources" one/Pei and co would have commented. Starting in 286, I warned Pei didn't always comment on his sources, you wondered what version of the sgz I was reading and pointed to where Pei did point out contradictions. On 287, I pointed out I said sometimes not always and pointed to three examples. One of which (Liu Ping, you would thought Wu I more meant the one involving Liu Bei) caused confusion but we sorted that out. You did engage fully on this strand so I am surprised that you came back with this a few pages later

2) The why wasn't there an anti Liu Bei version. I talked of short reign, Wei didn't even do one for Wu, that the idea of hatchet job would be based on virtue contradicts the nature of a hatchet job, it made no sense for Wu to do it before talking about "wonderful world" (I also mentioned even Liu Yu got slandered but that was a small line). Your response to each and every one is along the lines of "Liu Bei is so virtuous that it could never happen"


Sure.

Yep.

Yes you did. No thats not my argument. My argument was that those that did slander will have too little to work with due to Liu Bei behaviour and reputation. And even if they did, it would be dismissed. Not recorded than refuted but just straight up dismissed which can explain why theres no Liu Bei slander.

No, I'm not even sure how that comes across. I'm just not willing to do your work for you anymore


Im replying to this: " The reason I'm not just quoting it that this is what I have asked of you (bar mod stuff) during our debates: 1) The odd source. Which is conventional requirement but I hope I have never overdone the request "

Your decision I guess.

1) Yes, I did point out I have asked for sources. Why mention it? To show the reflective workload in the debate is getting very one sided.

2) It is the only source of the prophecies that I'm aware of and I don't recommend wiki as a proper source so even if I had been aware of that, I wouldn't have gone for it. I made clear prewriting it up where I it was coming from

I have pointed out I am allowed by convention to snip long sources. You may not like it but tough. I did not omit vital information, the Xian thing is your massively interpreting it differently from Farmer and myself in a way I didn't foresee coming

3) The "I forgot", let's start from 287: Bar my good wishes to Vinny, it opens up with my pointing out I had answered a question repeatedly (also had tracking down a source again but in fairness, that one was easy for you to miss), when I did you did thank me which I do appreciate, and there is another which has me pointing out I had set out my stance repeatedly but rather then look back, you ask me to summarize them both again. I had to remind you I had linked you to Zhang Yu's death in sgz

288: You seemed to forget both the sources discussion and my wider points about no Liu Bei slander book, you forgot I was posting from a book despite being told it was from Farmer's Qiao Zhou work, you forgot the Zhang Yu source again. Plus the Kong Rong one :wink:

289 has been continuation on other forgotten ones


I agreed.

Yes you did.

And Im pointing out no you arent allowed to do so? Sure. Qiao Zhou did use the Xian Di thing... so...

Eh, I did look back like I mentioned before. And I thanked you for linking previously already.

I knew it was from a book. And I never forgot either the Zhang Yu or Kong Rong one.

Yes.

Qiao Zhou didn't connect Liu Bei and co with the Duke of Jin or with Emperor Ling, he built a case for "naming prophecy works" is how Farmer (as I read his explanation afterwards) and I both see it. You clearly see it in an entirely different way that I could not have anticipated since it never occurred to me that you would deem Qiao Zhou as connecting Liu Bei's dynasty to the Duke of Jin. It is his not false but two people getting wildly different interpretations of the text

Because bar showing how naming thing worked, it is irrelevant. Given the unexpected direction you have interpreted this has led me to citing Farmer's explanation afterwards, I'm willing to quote that but may take awhile. Let me know if you want it

Sure. There are umpteen reasons why someone informed Liu Bei and it is impossible to guess which one. The 3kingdoms China and every historian is wrong, Han is right, everybody else just can't see the illogic but thank goodness for clear-sighted Han :wink: In all seriousness, you may not be able to understand it and that's fine, we can talk about it but when it is everybody vs you, maybe the problem is your failure to understand? Which is fine and very understandable (this sort of thing would be far more helpful if there was more detail I do agree) but the issue isn't with Zhang Yu. We have already talked of inappropriate use of the term slander and that it is insulting all of Ancient Chinese is just... odd and I realize your probably going for effect with that but it is just too over the top that it undermines your point.

I would have more gone "Qiao Zhou can't make a prediction with Liu Shan as Emperor till after he becomes Emperor" (partly I have also seen First/Former interchanged in the past) but agreed, it has to be after Liu Bei dies

I know what you said and you continued sniping at me for it ever since. Next time though when quoting, put it in quote format or italics so it easier at a quick glance to see when the quote ends

and I explained why I was entitled not to do it the way you wished. You just don't like it


He literally did connect it. Immediately after Duke.

The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that Marquis Mu of Jin named his elder son and heir apparent "Chou" and his younger son "Chengshi". His adviser Shifu (師服) told him, 'What weird names you have given your sons! A ruler calls his favourite consorts fei (妃) and his less favoured consorts chou (仇). Now, when you name your elder son chou and your younger son chengshi (literally: "form an army"), aren't you sowing the seeds for an internal conflict by instigating your younger son to (form an army and rebel and) replace his brother (a "less favoured" heir apparent)?' The scenario which Shifu described became reality later.

Emperor Ling of Han called his sons "Marquis of Shi" (史侯) and "Marquis of Hou" (董侯). Although both of them were emperors at some point of time in their lives, they ultimately ended up being removed from the throne and reduced to the status of lesser nobles. This resonates with what Shifu talked about.

The Late Emperor's given name was "Bei" (備), which implies "well-furnished"; His Majesty's given name is "Shan" (禪), which implies "giving away". Does this mean that the Liu family is already so "well-furnished" that they should "give away" (their throne)? Their names are even more inauspicious than those of Marquis Mu and Emperor Ling's sons.[14]

[14] (周緣瓊言,乃觸類而長之曰:「春秋傳著晉穆侯名太子曰仇,弟曰成師。師服曰:『異哉君之名子也!嘉耦曰妃,怨偶曰仇,今君名太子曰仇,弟曰成師,始兆亂矣,兄其替乎?』其後果如服言。及漢靈帝名二子曰史侯、董侯,旣立為帝,後皆免為諸侯,與師服言相似也。先主諱備,其訓具也,後主諱禪,其訓授也,如言劉已具矣,當授與人也;意者甚於穆侯、靈帝之名子。」) Sanguozhi vol. 42.

Qiao Zhou used Duke of Spring and Autumn. Then he used the two East Han Emperors as proof. Not irrelevant as a result. I have repeatedly said I wanted it and have requested many times. So yes. Please.

Lets be mature and respectful here and not fall into personal insults. Attack my point and not my character. Attack the message and not the messanger. Even when I justifably accused you of omitting information, giving explanations and logical reasons why, I never said stuff like " Dong is right and everyone is wrong etc". And last I check, this is only a debate between me and you. Not everyone else. Actually no, part of Liu Bei justification to take the title of King was because XianDi was house arrest by Cao Cao and controlled by him. The Han was in turmoil since Dong Zhuo etc etc. So Zhang Yu saying Han will fall with all these happening will mean slander towards the Han loyalist.

Sure.

Not really. Im only explaining why its inappropriate. Never once have I attacked your character or use sarcasm against use. Even when I swear, I do it jokingly against Cao Cao.

And I explained why its not acceptable. Sure, same goes to you I guess.

True. Note however the many people who attacked Zhang Yu... the Yi gentry... wait nope. Scholars... nope. Zhuge Liang... nope he protested the execution. Chen Shou... wait no, he made clear it was grudge and that he was seen to have foreseen Liu Bei's death. The commentators of the sgz... nope. Western historians... nope. The only person attacking Zhang Yu as insulting or illogical is a guy thousands of years later who is a bit annoyed that Zhang Yu said something not in Liu Bei's favour

When did Zhang Yu say "Liu Bei sucks", he just said it would fall? Just like Qiao Zhou did but with Zhou attacking the very legitimacy of the dynasty.


Yes. Also take note that Zhang Yu was saying it privately which means not many will know about it in the first place. This means that the only ones who are capable of criticising Zhang Yu is the various historians. However, since Zhang Yu prediction came true, no one criticise it.

Exactly. He said Liu Bei would fall while he was on a winning streak against 1) Yi and 2) Xiahou. As far as I can recall, Qiao Zhou only said Shu Han would fall after Xian Di abdication and Liu Bei death.

To be happy about it? No Liu Bei is entitled to be annoyed at that (not to hold a grudge over the beard thing and use that grudge to execute someone) but he should deal with it as others did when such things. Or depending if you believe one annotation, what Liu Bei did with one that warned him of disaster. Which wasn't to kill them. I'm ok with Zhang Yu (or Qiao Zhou) feeling something bad would happen, nobody has accused him of false prophecy or lies, I also don't believe one should have to think everything is going to be alright just becuase you serve in the court.

Others had predicted the fall of the Han before and since.

We have no reason to assume the person who told was a Han loyalist. Again, Han the 2000 year later guy is the only one to see it as illogical and nonsensical.


You are entitled to your opinion I guess. Sure, but why say it without giving any reasonings and when your lord is on a winning streak?

And they always gave 1) Reasonings or were backed up by 2) Political realities. Unfortunately on the case of Zhang Yu, 1 was not recorded if at all mentioned and 2 did not support him.

Zhang Yu tried to kept it private. The only ones who knew was thus the historians( people with access to archives) and the people Zhang speak to. Someone felt it serious enough however, to inform Liu Bei instead of keeping it private. Attack the message not the messanger.

Agreed. Also Zhuge Liang didn't seem 100% convinced by the camapign on Hanzhong himself so such a reason might not have been a good one for him


Sure. Yes.

I'm going to use italics for you, underlined for me Hold up. The official reason for both is: Liu Bei killed Zhang Yu because Zhang Yu claimed that the reign of the Liu( Han Dynasty) would be over aka treason while Cao Cao killed Kong Rong because Róng met Sūn Quán’s envoy, said mocking and slanderous words [about Tàizǔ], and met with execution. How is the latter better than the former?

If your asking which offical excuse was the bigger lie, the Kong Rong one by a mile, it is a pretty bad constructed lie. If your asking which is the wronger execution? Zhang Yu. Zhang Yu was not the only soothsayer in Yi to predict Shu would fall, just the only one executed, the sgz (and professor Rafe) has it down at least partly for the grudge. Possibly Liu Bei's response to Zhuge Liang's protests not helping Liu Bei's reputation.


Who else said the Han Dynasty would end. Thats LITERALLY TREASON in the imperial eras of China. If Zhang Yu said that privately and no higher up found out, thats understandable. But point is Liu Bei found out. A Han Loyalist. Did Zhang Yu insults play a role? Yes. But the Main reason was definitely comitting treason. Its like Kong Rong. Him being an ass to Cao Cao was why he eventually die. But the Main reason was slandering Cao Cao in front of an envoy.


So your talking about Kong Rong and the envoy as why Cao Cao is justified to kill Kong Rong (we both agree Cao Cao had reasons to do so, it's more the exact reasoning we disagreed with)

Qiao Zhou for one. It was not the main reason Liu Bei gave to Zhuge Liang and it is not the main reason that seems accepted by others like Chen Shou. On the charges against Kong Rong, one is clear slander (raised army to overthrow Han) and the others as Professor Rafe notes
This attack by Chi Lü, referring to actions and associations of Kong Rong from ten years and more earlier, scraped the barrel to find causes for accusation, then categorised them overall as a pattern of treason.


You then accept it was slander
Source? Liu Bei called Zhang Yu a pretentious weed because Zhang Yu said that the Lius will not last long. Yes, Kong Rong is clear slander, and so was Zhang Yu. Them insulting their lords however did play a role in their deaths. Like I said if Liu Bei was executed ONLY because he was salty, Zhang Yu would have immediately died.


I literally informed you I knew how it all went down, so whats your point here?

And yes I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges. See clear slander and insulting their lords.

Only in Xu when he governed. I haven't seen anything that any warlord gave him unusual autonomy to start executing local gentry. Sun Ce had a lot of freedom in Wu as Yuan Shu couldn't really touch him without launching a full on invasion


In PingYuan too. Liu Bei was also given alot of freedom under GongSun Zan, Tian Kai and Tao Qian bar military matters.

but if executing Zhang Yu for his comments was as clear cut a "fair play" as you keep making out, Liu Bei has nothing to fear. Just say he made a prophecy, I'm killing him rather then result to what was a personal insult would be so much better.

Yes they were happy and celebrating, his work pre invasion was clearly a huge success and yes, not forcing a siege of the capital any longer would have been popular. I bet the wine and gifts didn't hurt either :wink: Yes people getting jobs they felt they were denied, I can see why they would like that and it was a great move by Liu Bei. I do like the Zhen Shi Fu Gan annotation

I see nothing of "Liu Bei taking Liu Zhang's generals surrenders is kindness". I haven't disputed Liu Bei treated the gentry with kindness


But he already charged him... and Zhuge Liang is the only one to had an issue so why charge all over again just for one guy who was already his best buddy which means no discontent even if execution still proceed.

Sure.

Except that I already mentioned that accepting Gentries into your service, especially one from opposing force is an act of kindness giving Liu Bei bio and Guan Zhong wikipedia as sources, while you still have not give any sources to back your claim by the way.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Academic
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:37 pm

Heard great things about Monster Hunter, glad your enjoying it

Fine. Fair enough, you have convinced me that Shi Xie was not a surbodinate in the traditional sense of the word. But I still believe his not a junior alliance member or even a vassal but somewhere in between surbodinate and vassal.


Not sure what one would call that?

Fair enough. I was just reading a askhistorians post where Cao Cao being a descendant of an Eunuch was held against him. But I still dont believe that this particular section of the Cao Man Zhuan was because of limiting Shi Xie's popularity with the local people.


I could see that being an issue for Cao Cao but it isn't something I have strongly sensed.


Then can you please stop using it?

I agree to all these. Im just saying once again, that Zhang Xiu was the vital reason behind Ang death due to him being the main dude behind the rebellion.

At this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.


People tend to find it easier with their own lives to understand a comparison

Fair enough

Sure.

Yep.

Yes you did. No thats not my argument. My argument was that those that did slander will have too little to work with due to Liu Bei behaviour and reputation. And even if they did, it would be dismissed. Not recorded than refuted but just straight up dismissed which can explain why theres no Liu Bei slander.


I paraphrased the argument. Yes, your argument is still that we live in a wonderful world where slander doesn't happen to good people (not sure if it covers wrongful arrests) and that the historians, despite all the other times they let such things go, would come to the defence here. While countering nothing of what I said

Im replying to this: " The reason I'm not just quoting it that this is what I have asked of you (bar mod stuff) during our debates: 1) The odd source. Which is conventional requirement but I hope I have never overdone the request "

Your decision I guess.


I know what you were replying to. Still baffled as to how you managed to get that at all from the wider post.


And Im pointing out no you arent allowed to do so? Sure. Qiao Zhou did use the Xian Di thing... so...

Eh, I did look back like I mentioned before. And I thanked you for linking previously already.

I knew it was from a book. And I never forgot either the Zhang Yu or Kong Rong one.



Yes you keep insisting that I'm not allowed to based on... what? I have agreed in another context it would be unacceptable, but in this context I'm basing it on having learnt the conventions of this forum and other 3kingdoms forums over a decade. Yes, I failed to anticipate that you would read it in a way nobody else I have ever come across (granted, a small segment but still, only one)

yet you seem to have missed everything

Yes you did thank me and if you looked back, why did you ask me to find it for you?

So if you knew it was from a book why did you go
This is not posting a source. When posting a source you need to post the complete thing. If you are going to post part of the source, then link the rest for me/us to see.
followed by
Right. Apologies. I didnt know it was a book.
I honestly can't imagine you said this for another other reason then you forgot it was a book.

So why when I pointed out I had posted a link to Zhang Yu's death already, you ask for the link?

If you didn't forget then why did all that happen?

He literally did connect it. Immediately after Duke.

The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that Marquis Mu of Jin named his elder son and heir apparent "Chou" and his younger son "Chengshi". His adviser Shifu (師服) told him, 'What weird names you have given your sons! A ruler calls his favourite consorts fei (妃) and his less favoured consorts chou (仇). Now, when you name your elder son chou and your younger son chengshi (literally: "form an army"), aren't you sowing the seeds for an internal conflict by instigating your younger son to (form an army and rebel and) replace his brother (a "less favoured" heir apparent)?' The scenario which Shifu described became reality later.

Emperor Ling of Han called his sons "Marquis of Shi" (史侯) and "Marquis of Hou" (董侯). Although both of them were emperors at some point of time in their lives, they ultimately ended up being removed from the throne and reduced to the status of lesser nobles. This resonates with what Shifu talked about.

The Late Emperor's given name was "Bei" (備), which implies "well-furnished"; His Majesty's given name is "Shan" (禪), which implies "giving away". Does this mean that the Liu family is already so "well-furnished" that they should "give away" (their throne)? Their names are even more inauspicious than those of Marquis Mu and Emperor Ling's sons.[14]

[14] (周緣瓊言,乃觸類而長之曰:「春秋傳著晉穆侯名太子曰仇,弟曰成師。師服曰:『異哉君之名子也!嘉耦曰妃,怨偶曰仇,今君名太子曰仇,弟曰成師,始兆亂矣,兄其替乎?』其後果如服言。及漢靈帝名二子曰史侯、董侯,旣立為帝,後皆免為諸侯,與師服言相似也。先主諱備,其訓具也,後主諱禪,其訓授也,如言劉已具矣,當授與人也;意者甚於穆侯、靈帝之名子。」) Sanguozhi vol. 42.

Qiao Zhou used Duke of Spring and Autumn. Then he used the two East Han Emperors as proof. Not irrelevant as a result. I have repeatedly said I wanted it and have requested many times. So yes. Please.


I'm wondering if the line resonates is leading to your assumption, Farmer's has "similar to what Shi Fu had said."

Qiao Zhou is establishing the... art of name prophecy as it were. Simply going "look at Liu Bei/Shan's names" and people might go "eh that's a stretch". Reach into two examples and that Shi Fu had used name predictions gives a credibility to it. At no point is Qiao Zhou connect the dynasties

Farmer's explanation
These three prophesies were based on a type of wordplay categorized in the Han History as "inconsistent words." (yan zhi bu cong). That is, the names chosen by the rulers were meant to convey auspicious meanings, but an alternate reading of these names conveyed the opposite and these hidden meanings were meant to be prophetic. In the case of the sons of Duke Mu of Jin, the eldest Son Chou became the enemy (chou) of his brother, who led troops back to Jin in an effort to the claim the throne. The hidden meanings of the names of the sons of Emperor Ling of Han were likewise prophetic in a negative sense. The princes were purposely mistitles "marquises" instead of princes to protect them from supernatural elements with evil designs on the heirs to the throne. Ironically on their removal from the throne as emperors, they were each given benefice as a marquis. The alternate interpretation of the names of the two sovereigns of Shu-Han as explained by Qiao Zhou are obvious and, ironically, employ the same play on words as the prophesies cited in the memorial urging Liu Bei to claim the throne. In all of these examples, Qiao Zhou applied the prophetic techniques learned from Du Qiong to various historical cases with the goal of commentating on the present situation.


On the notes, most are explaining who Duke Min and others are, saying a source (sgz blah blah) and at end of the prophecy, note on 197 has (
"Liu Xiang described this as "when the orders from the superior with the common people's will, the ruler would then be unable to regulate his empire"
). At end of Farmer's explanation is note 160
The Song History and Jin Histories treatise also record this prophesy, though with minor modifications. Neither account provides the portion of the prophesy noting the historical cases of Duke Mu or Emperor Ling. They each render Qiao Zhou's closing remarks as "This is really like the omens of the meaning of the naming of the sons of Duke Mu and Emperor. Only Shen Yues's narrative in the Song History offers a historical postface which reads "Shu was subsequently lost. This is an example of inconsistent words"


Lets be mature and respectful here and not fall into personal insults. Attack my point and not my character. Attack the message and not the messanger. Even when I justifably accused you of omitting information, giving explanations and logical reasons why, I never said stuff like " Dong is right and everyone is wrong etc". And last I check, this is only a debate between me and you. Not everyone else. Actually no, part of Liu Bei justification to take the title of King was because XianDi was house arrest by Cao Cao and controlled by him. The Han was in turmoil since Dong Zhuo etc etc. So Zhang Yu saying Han will fall with all these happening will mean slander towards the Han loyalist.
.


Says mr Lmao :wink: I was being sarcastic but if that is a line for you, I'll bear that in mind. I did however point to an issue, you are the only one who is deeming Zhang Yu as, for example, slandering all of ancient China. Everyone is fine with what Zhang Yu did as a prophecy, there is not mass condemnation for him for making that prophecy but you alone are making it into a big crime. You are doing this to an extent where you are engaging in slander of Zhang Yu

Now your not understanding how he came up with that? Completely fine. Understandable. We can have a discussion about that and if afterwards your still not clear then that is ok too. Where the issue is is becuase you don't understand, your going around attacking Zhang Yu.

People who call Zhang Yu of slandering Han loyalists=0. Other then you.

Yes. Also take note that Zhang Yu was saying it privately which means not many will know about it in the first place. This means that the only ones who are capable of criticising Zhang Yu is the various historians. However, since Zhang Yu prediction came true, no one criticise it.

Exactly. He said Liu Bei would fall while he was on a winning streak against 1) Yi and 2) Xiahou. As far as I can recall, Qiao Zhou only said Shu Han would fall after Xian Di abdication and Liu Bei death.


People of the time (however far the prophecy leaked out after death), historians afterwards don't attack him. Just you.

So Zhang Yu didn't say it sucked. Again, Zhou attacked the legitimacy of the dynasty and surely kicking while something is down is worse then foreseeing bad things when things are on a high?

You are entitled to your opinion I guess. Sure, but why say it without giving any reasonings and when your lord is on a winning streak?

And they always gave 1) Reasonings or were backed up by 2) Political realities. Unfortunately on the case of Zhang Yu, 1 was not recorded if at all mentioned and 2 did not support him.

Zhang Yu tried to kept it private. The only ones who knew was thus the historians( people with access to archives) and the people Zhang speak to. Someone felt it serious enough however, to inform Liu Bei instead of keeping it private. Attack the message not the messanger.


It seems cowardly to me to refuse to say "bad things are going to happen" just becuase things are going well. Some prophets make their name by doing that. In terms of reasoning, he may well have done but we don't have the record of why he said it

There is probably some political reality that Zhang Yu could have used for why he felt bad things would happen. It would be me guesswork on my part and you may not agree with reasoning

Your assuming the prophecy didn't leak out after death which I would be a little surprised, we don't know how far word got out. I'm not attacking you but when it is everyone else in history vs you, might it just be you are wrong?

literally informed you I knew how it all went down, so whats your point here?

And yes I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges. See clear slander and insulting their lords.


Does the italics/u thing not work for you and that confused you? Did you skimread due to time? Forget the context this is being discussed? I'm struggling to see me posting up the opposite of what you have been claiming leads you to think your position was what you think it was

But he already charged him... and Zhuge Liang is the only one to had an issue so why charge all over again just for one guy who was already his best buddy which means no discontent even if execution still proceed.

Sure.

Except that I already mentioned that accepting Gentries into your service, especially one from opposing force is an act of kindness giving Liu Bei bio and Guan Zhong wikipedia as sources, while you still have not give any sources to back your claim by the way.


He doesn't have to charge him again, he just has to tell Zhuge Liang "prophecy" if he thinks that charge would stick.

Only the Liu Bei sgz doesn't say that as I pointed out.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15347
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:15 pm

I paraphrased the argument. Yes, your argument is still that we live in a wonderful world where slander doesn't happen to good people (not sure if it covers wrongful arrests) and that the historians, despite all the other times they let such things go, would come to the defence here. While countering nothing of what I said


Then you paraphrased wrongly. Why dont u reread, I said there are people that will slander but have too little to work with??? And said historians source their claims. At least the major ones. I just did lmao but restating my point.

I know what you were replying to. Still baffled as to how you managed to get that at all from the wider post.


Than feel free to explain what that line meant.

Yes you keep insisting that I'm not allowed to based on... what? I have agreed in another context it would be unacceptable, but in this context I'm basing it on having learnt the conventions of this forum and other 3kingdoms forums over a decade. Yes, I failed to anticipate that you would read it in a way nobody else I have ever come across (granted, a small segment but still, only one)

yet you seem to have missed everything

Yes you did thank me and if you looked back, why did you ask me to find it for you?

So if you knew it was from a book why did you go
This is not posting a source. When posting a source you need to post the complete thing. If you are going to post part of the source, then link the rest for me/us to see.
followed by
Right. Apologies. I didnt know it was a book.
I honestly can't imagine you said this for another other reason then you forgot it was a book.

So why when I pointed out I had posted a link to Zhang Yu's death already, you ask for the link?

If you didn't forget then why did all that happen?


I explained it already. Omitting information makes debating difficult. :wink:

Nope.

Look back for? I remember asking you to summarise your stand only if I recall correctly.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The first was me explaining why omitting information is improper. The second is me apologising for not knowing that you were typing from a book and thus apologising for not knowing.

Yep.

I didnt.


I asked you to summarise stand and to not omit vital information?

I'm wondering if the line resonates is leading to your assumption, Farmer's has "similar to what Shi Fu had said."

Qiao Zhou is establishing the... art of name prophecy as it were. Simply going "look at Liu Bei/Shan's names" and people might go "eh that's a stretch". Reach into two examples and that Shi Fu had used name predictions gives a credibility to it. At no point is Qiao Zhou connect the dynasties

Farmer's explanation
These three prophesies were based on a type of wordplay categorized in the Han History as "inconsistent words." (yan zhi bu cong). That is, the names chosen by the rulers were meant to convey auspicious meanings, but an alternate reading of these names conveyed the opposite and these hidden meanings were meant to be prophetic. In the case of the sons of Duke Mu of Jin, the eldest Son Chou became the enemy (chou) of his brother, who led troops back to Jin in an effort to the claim the throne. The hidden meanings of the names of the sons of Emperor Ling of Han were likewise prophetic in a negative sense. The princes were purposely mistitles "marquises" instead of princes to protect them from supernatural elements with evil designs on the heirs to the throne. Ironically on their removal from the throne as emperors, they were each given benefice as a marquis. The alternate interpretation of the names of the two sovereigns of Shu-Han as explained by Qiao Zhou are obvious and, ironically, employ the same play on words as the prophesies cited in the memorial urging Liu Bei to claim the throne. In all of these examples, Qiao Zhou applied the prophetic techniques learned from Du Qiong to various historical cases with the goal of commentating on the present situation.


On the notes, most are explaining who Duke Min and others are, saying a source (sgz blah blah) and at end of the prophecy, note on 197 has (
"Liu Xiang described this as "when the orders from the superior with the common people's will, the ruler would then be unable to regulate his empire"
). At end of Farmer's explanation is note 160
The Song History and Jin Histories treatise also record this prophesy, though with minor modifications. Neither account provides the portion of the prophesy noting the historical cases of Duke Mu or Emperor Ling. They each render Qiao Zhou's closing remarks as "This is really like the omens of the meaning of the naming of the sons of Duke Mu and Emperor. Only Shen Yues's narrative in the Song History offers a historical postface which reads "Shu was subsequently lost. This is an example of inconsistent words"


Firstly, Id like to sincerely thank you for posting full information. By the way, not posting explanations and sources is okay because we understand the context of information and time period plus its directly from a book, so I have no issues with that. Once again, thanks. Now...

THATS WHAT I SAID!!!

The Duke gave stupid names

" The Spring and Autumn Annals recorded that Marquis Mu of Jin named his elder son and heir apparent "Chou" and his younger son "Chengshi". His adviser Shifu (師服) told him, 'What weird names you have given your sons! A ruler calls his favourite consorts fei (妃) and his less favoured consorts chou (仇). Now, when you name your elder son chou and your younger son chengshi (literally: "form an army"), aren't you sowing the seeds for an internal conflict by instigating your younger son to (form an army and rebel and) replace his brother (a "less favoured" heir apparent)?' "

His State got into civil war.

" The scenario which Shifu described became reality later."

The Duke Sons names were first example. The civil war was the first evidence as support.

Emperor gave stupid names.

" Emperor Ling of Han called his sons "Marquis of Shi" (史侯) and "Marquis of Hou" (董侯)."

His Sons lost power.

" Although both of them were emperors at some point of time in their lives, they ultimately ended up being removed from the throne and reduced to the status of lesser nobles. This resonates with what Shifu talked about."

The controlled Emperors names as second example. Lost of power second evidence as support.

There you go, Qiao Zhou did use Xian Di as an example for why Shu Han will fall.

Says mr Lmao :wink: I was being sarcastic but if that is a line for you, I'll bear that in mind. I did however point to an issue, you are the only one who is deeming Zhang Yu as, for example, slandering all of ancient China. Everyone is fine with what Zhang Yu did as a prophecy, there is not mass condemnation for him for making that prophecy but you alone are making it into a big crime. You are doing this to an extent where you are engaging in slander of Zhang Yu

Now your not understanding how he came up with that? Completely fine. Understandable. We can have a discussion about that and if afterwards your still not clear then that is ok too. Where the issue is is becuase you don't understand, your going around attacking Zhang Yu.

People who call Zhang Yu of slandering Han loyalists=0. Other then you.


Hold up. When I say lmao Im laughing. When I said omit information I never attacked you. When I used sarcasm, I dont mention you. Just do the same. Once again, not everyone was find. Zhang Yu tried to kept it private but someone reported it. Slander lmao. Im cool with Zhang Yu. But saying the Han will fall will not sit well with any Han loyalist.

Ok then tell me how he came up with it other than your previous claim about watching the stars which I countered already. Lmaooo. I didnt attack Zhang Yu.

According to Lady Wu:

Thus the First Ruler had always bore a grudge against his presumptiousness; and, in addition to his misspoken words, he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him

So someone felt that his words were misspoken. :wink: And once again, this debate is me and you so...

People of the time (however far the prophecy leaked out after death), historians afterwards don't attack him. Just you.

So Zhang Yu didn't say it sucked. Again, Zhou attacked the legitimacy of the dynasty and surely kicking while something is down is worse then foreseeing bad things when things are on a high?


Yeah. Someone just reported to their lord lmaoo. They didnt attack because his prophecy came true. I literally mentioned it previously that Zhang not giving reason for prophecy made him come off as stupid but since it came true made him come off as great.

What?! Lmaooo. What?!!! Yeah... he did not say it sucked! Zhang Yu literally said Liu Bei will fail and Han will fall!!! There are more inauspicious predictions when things are gloomy politically speaking. At this point Im sick of repeating my stand:

Zhang Yu did not

1) Give reasoning.

2) Said it a bad time where the East Han was barely in existence.

3) Was not backed up by political realities of his time by the fact that Liu Bei was on a winning streak.

Qiao Zhou did

1) Give reasoning using history, names and culture.

2) Said it at a time where the East Han was long over.

3) Was backed up by political realities in terms of Shu Han heavy decline.

It seems cowardly to me to refuse to say "bad things are going to happen" just becuase things are going well. Some prophets make their name by doing that. In terms of reasoning, he may well have done but we don't have the record of why he said it

There is probably some political reality that Zhang Yu could have used for why he felt bad things would happen. It would be me guesswork on my part and you may not agree with reasoning

Your assuming the prophecy didn't leak out after death which I would be a little surprised, we don't know how far word got out. I'm not attacking you but when it is everyone else in history vs you, might it just be you are wrong?


Yeah they did. Like Du Qiong and Qiao Zhou who by the way both gave reasonings.

After he gave bad advice on HanZhong? No. In comparison to Du Qiong and Qiao Zhou? No. Im okay with you guessing. Im literally doing the same. No issue here.

Im the one thats surprised because Zhang Yu keeping it private and Liu Bei not mentioning it and Zhuge Liang not knowing it shows that the important ones were trying to either hide or not mention or dont know. Ehh. The history that says Zhang Yu says all these inauspicious things without giving reasons but it came true so lets agree with him? Hmmm I dont see why I should buy into that!

Does the italics/u thing not work for you and that confused you? Did you skimread due to time? Forget the context this is being discussed? I'm struggling to see me posting up the opposite of what you have been claiming leads you to think your position was what you think it was


No. No. And No.

Heres my stand: I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges.

Hered my reference evidence: See clear slander and insulting their lords.

Feel free to contribute to this debate and try to rebutt my stand when you are ready! :D

He doesn't have to charge him again, he just has to tell Zhuge Liang "prophecy" if he thinks that charge would stick.

Only the Liu Bei sgz doesn't say that as I pointed out.


Maybe Liu Bei felt that it was a hassle? Maybe he felt embarrassing or a waste of time to mention to Zhuge Liang? Maybe he did mention it later on but was not recorded? Maybe he already hinted by calling him a pretentious weed( inferior person) growing outside ones doors( spreading pathetic rumours)?

Lets try this again.

"The First Sovereign ordered lots of wine to be brought for the troops and conferred gifts to the Shu officials. The First Sovereign became Imperial Protector of Yizhou; Zhuge Liang his assistant; Fa Zheng his advisor; Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Ma Chao his subordinate generals; titles were given to Xu Jing, Mi Zhu, Jian Yong, Dong He, Huang Quan, Li Yan (who were Liu Zhang’s former generals), Fei Guan (who was Liu Zhang’s relative), Peng Yang (who Liu Zhang did not like), Liu Ba. Liu Zhang was wary and jealous of people like Liu Ba but the First Sovereign gave them the right positions and all were very satisfied. (XL)

XL: It can be seen here that Liu Bei not only treated his own subordinates generously but also Liu Zhang’s generals and subordinates. We note that Liu Ba, who constantly avoided Liu Bei for many years, was promoted. Everyone was satisfied and Rafe De Crespigny mentions about Liu Bei’s amazing charisma and how he won the alleigance of people from all over China, from his home province of Zhuo (Jian Yong), to Xuzhou (Mi Zhu), the Jingzhou region and now the officials and generals of Yizhou.

Liu Bei was a person who was very generous and courteous with everyone, hence many people were willing to fight for him.

This was labelled after 33. Accepting Liu Zhang surrender."

You were saying?
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Academic
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:06 pm

Then you paraphrased wrongly. Why dont u reread, I said there are people that will slander but have too little to work with??? And said historians source their claims. At least the major ones. I just did lmao but restating my point.


and again, your assuming people need anything to hang a slander on. In my expirence, one doesn't even need to actually have been in the relevant area to be slandered. I also have pointed to the many many times the historians don't address slander or contradictions

Than feel free to explain what that line meant.


My argument is that I have been doing the heavy lifting and that at some point, I have just got tired of doing your work (ie you going back and looking up things you forgot) for you. However if f you do have a medical or computer issue that makes it more difficult to look back on things, just let me know.

I explained it already. Omitting information makes debating difficult. :wink:

Nope.

Look back for? I remember asking you to summarise your stand only if I recall correctly.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The first was me explaining why omitting information is improper. The second is me apologising for not knowing that you were typing from a book and thus apologising for not knowing.


Well not any more then two historians did apparently :wink: In all seriousness, you keep claiming that but again, I could not have foreseen your reaction to it. Three historians (judging by two history works omitting the wider prophecy), two or three people who have the book and myself seem to have got different conclusions to you. It is indeed wrong during a debate to omit vital information but you deem it... something rather then that I read the passage very differently from you

Yes, you have to the extent it is actually concerning

For the link

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The first was me explaining why omitting information is improper. The second is me apologising for not knowing that you were typing from a book and thus apologising for not knowing.


This is concerning. I did not say either were mutually exclusive at all during that. Let me try to recap the conversation for you as simply as I can since (I'm guessing you mixed up with someone else your debate with)

1) I accuse you of forgetting.

You deny it

2) I give a summary of what you have forgotten over two pages.

You deny

3) One of those is the Qiao Zhou book and that you forgot it was a book after I had told you it was a book.

You deny

4) I post two quotes from you showing you forgot. You even admitted you forgot in the quote.

You then go on another strand and seem to have forgot we were talking about stuff you forgot.

Yep.

I didnt.


I asked you to summarise stand and to not omit vital information?


I'm not sure if the Yep is in relation to Qiao Zhou or the Zhang Yu thing

If you didn't forget which is what you keep claiming, why did you admit you forget within the post and why did you ask for a link again among the other things?

Firstly, Id like to sincerely thank you for posting full information. By the way, not posting explanations and sources is okay because we understand the context of information and time period plus its directly from a book, so I have no issues with that. Once again, thanks. Now...

THATS WHAT I SAID!!!

*snip*

There you go, Qiao Zhou did use Xian Di as an example for why Shu Han will fall.


Thank you for the thanks.

Your reading this very differently from everyone else. Which is fine, your entitled to read it as you like and I can see where your coming from to a degree but you still need to explain how the Duke of Jin is a vital part of Shu legitimacy and connected to it.

Hold up. When I say lmao Im laughing. When I said omit information I never attacked you. When I used sarcasm, I dont mention you. Just do the same. Once again, not everyone was find. Zhang Yu tried to kept it private but someone reported it. Slander lmao. Im cool with Zhang Yu. But saying the Han will fall will not sit well with any Han loyalist.

Ok then tell me how he came up with it other than your previous claim about watching the stars which I countered already. Lmaooo. I didnt attack Zhang Yu.

According to Lady Wu:

Thus the First Ruler had always bore a grudge against his presumptiousness; and, in addition to his misspoken words, he put him in jail on the charge of giving bad advice during the campaign of Hanzhong, and was about to kill him

So someone felt that his words were misspoken. :wink: And once again, this debate is me and you so...



The problem with lmao is one it is after someone made a point or a claim, your laughing at the point which will put backs up. I felt my sarcasm was more addressed at the point but I'll try to keep that line

You have been attacking Zhang Yu for incompetence, accused him of being liar, of being a dumb dumb and even going as far as to claim he slandered all of Ancient China, you constantly say Zhang Yu was insulting rather then prophecy. I would hate to see what you did to someone you dislike :wink:

I think you missed the wider point I was making there when I mentioned the stars. As for how, the actual method used is lost to us and that isn't Zhang Yu's fault, that is the Shu records or whoever was in charge of the case not delving into case properly to get full details. For all we know, he literally looked up at the stars and got that prediction. It could be the fall of the Han predictions were a lot more numerous then winner comes from west played a part? If he had non prophecy based doubts, I can only speculate. Liu Bei is old and who knows what Zhang Yu knew of the heirs, there had been problems in the administration like Fa Zhang, near bankruptcy, failure with the history work, there were issues with Liu Bei's senior commanders, he may not have felt much of the army. Again, we lack the details to judge what Zhang Yu made the claims on, not Zhang Yu's fault

The debate is indeed between me and you. I'm also pointing out your attacks on Zhang Yu go against everyone else and when one is alone in the type of thinking, it is best to have a think as to why that is.

Yeah. Someone just reported to their lord lmaoo. They didnt attack because his prophecy came true. I literally mentioned it previously that Zhang not giving reason for prophecy made him come off as stupid but since it came true made him come off as great.

What?! Lmaooo. What?!!! Yeah... he did not say it sucked! Zhang Yu literally said Liu Bei will fail and Han will fall!!! There are more inauspicious predictions when things are gloomy politically speaking. At this point Im sick of repeating my stand:


True, one person of unknown motive did for whatever reason.

Your the one that claimed he said it sucked. Personally I'm not a fan of fairweather prophets who will only predict the prevailing winds, if your going to have a prophet around then one that will give their honest view seems far better.

Rest I feel I covered above

Yeah they did. Like Du Qiong and Qiao Zhou who by the way both gave reasonings.

After he gave bad advice on HanZhong? No. In comparison to Du Qiong and Qiao Zhou? No. Im okay with you guessing. Im literally doing the same. No issue here.

Im the one thats surprised because Zhang Yu keeping it private and Liu Bei not mentioning it and Zhuge Liang not knowing it shows that the important ones were trying to either hide or not mention or dont know. Ehh. The history that says Zhang Yu says all these inauspicious things without giving reasons but it came true so lets agree with him? Hmmm I dont see why I should buy into that!


We don't know Du Qiong's prophecies off the top of my head? Qiao Zhou did the opposite but he gave honest prophecy so got no issue with that.

The problem is, your attacking him based on the guess.

Why does the prophecy seem to have leaked out? I suspect when Zhang Yu got killed, people gossiped as to why. Having heard the prophecy may have had a certain... social advantage as people love secrets. Particularly 9 years later when you can say it came true

No. No. And No.

Heres my stand: I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges.

Hered my reference evidence: See clear slander and insulting their lords.

Feel free to contribute to this debate and try to rebutt my stand when you are ready! :D


The problem is you claimed one thing. I showed the text of the debate showed the exact opposite. Then you repeat your claim while quoting the proof against your claim. I am trying to figure out that happened

Maybe Liu Bei felt that it was a hassle? Maybe he felt embarrassing or a waste of time to mention to Zhuge Liang? Maybe he did mention it later on but was not recorded? Maybe he already hinted by calling him a pretentious weed( inferior person) growing outside ones doors( spreading pathetic rumours)?

Lets try this again.

"The First Sovereign ordered lots of wine to be brought for the troops and conferred gifts to the Shu officials. The First Sovereign became Imperial Protector of Yizhou; Zhuge Liang his assistant; Fa Zheng his advisor; Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Ma Chao his subordinate generals; titles were given to Xu Jing, Mi Zhu, Jian Yong, Dong He, Huang Quan, Li Yan (who were Liu Zhang’s former generals), Fei Guan (who was Liu Zhang’s relative), Peng Yang (who Liu Zhang did not like), Liu Ba. Liu Zhang was wary and jealous of people like Liu Ba but the First Sovereign gave them the right positions and all were very satisfied. (XL)

XL: It can be seen here that Liu Bei not only treated his own subordinates generously but also Liu Zhang’s generals and subordinates. We note that Liu Ba, who constantly avoided Liu Bei for many years, was promoted. Everyone was satisfied and Rafe De Crespigny mentions about Liu Bei’s amazing charisma and how he won the alleigance of people from all over China, from his home province of Zhuo (Jian Yong), to Xuzhou (Mi Zhu), the Jingzhou region and now the officials and generals of Yizhou.

Liu Bei was a person who was very generous and courteous with everyone, hence many people were willing to fight for him.

This was labelled after 33. Accepting Liu Zhang surrender."

You were saying?


If it was embarrassing, maybe he shouldn't execute? I'm not sure giving a snippy one liner when Zhuge Liang is asking a genuine question about a man's life isn't wasting time (telling him fully afterwards wouldn't be that helpful). Prophecy is not spreading rumours but I suppose Lii Bei was helping explain Liu Bei did't like people being witter then him when Liu Bei is a guest and being rude

So we have the main sgz, giving gifts which was popular. We have people being pleased at the good governance and getting ranks they felt entitled to but no mention of kindness on that. Then the translator's personal view rather then the sgz
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15347
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:44 pm

and again, your assuming people need anything to hang a slander on. In my expirence, one doesn't even need to actually have been in the relevant area to be slandered. I also have pointed to the many many times the historians don't address slander or contradictions


Yes. Your personal experience is not relevant in terms of 3k China. Ive said this many times by now. I also have pointed to the many many times the historians address slander or contradictions. The SanGuoZhiZhu was recorded partly to fill in info plus also figure out the contradictions.

My argument is that I have been doing the heavy lifting and that at some point, I have just got tired of doing your work (ie you going back and looking up things you forgot) for you. However if f you do have a medical or computer issue that makes it more difficult to look back on things, just let me know.


Sure. ROFL. No need lmao.

Well not any more then two historians did apparently :wink: In all seriousness, you keep claiming that but again, I could not have foreseen your reaction to it. Three historians (judging by two history works omitting the wider prophecy), two or three people who have the book and myself seem to have got different conclusions to you. It is indeed wrong during a debate to omit vital information but you deem it... something rather then that I read the passage very differently from you

Yes, you have to the extent it is actually concerning

For the link


I dont understand this paragraph at all. Are you sure you are replying correctly?

Not really.

Thats because it was too far back IIRC

This is concerning. I did not say either were mutually exclusive at all during that. Let me try to recap the conversation for you as simply as I can since (I'm guessing you mixed up with someone else your debate with)

1) I accuse you of forgetting.

You deny it

2) I give a summary of what you have forgotten over two pages.

You deny

3) One of those is the Qiao Zhou book and that you forgot it was a book after I had told you it was a book.

You deny

4) I post two quotes from you showing you forgot. You even admitted you forgot in the quote.

You then go on another strand and seem to have forgot we were talking about stuff you forgot.


Not really. You asked reasons for my statements. I provided reasons for my statements. I didnt mix up anything lmao.

1) Yes and Yes.

2) Yes. Deny what?

3) When you first type out your source, you did not state it was a book. Later on you said its a book, I apologise for being inconsiderate. Deny what?

4) You did posted quotes. I never admit I forgot... because I never forgot.

No and No.

I'm not sure if the Yep is in relation to Qiao Zhou or the Zhang Yu thing

If you didn't forget which is what you keep claiming, why did you admit you forget within the post and why did you ask for a link again among the other things?


The link thing.

I never admitted I forgot. For what its worth. The link was too far back and was very similar to the kongming one.

Thank you for the thanks.

Your reading this very differently from everyone else. Which is fine, your entitled to read it as you like and I can see where your coming from to a degree but you still need to explain how the Duke of Jin is a vital part of Shu legitimacy and connected to it.


Sure.

Except I already did many times. Qiao used history( Duke) as examples, names as reasoning and downfalls as evidence. Theres your connection.

The problem with lmao is one it is after someone made a point or a claim, your laughing at the point which will put backs up. I felt my sarcasm was more addressed at the point but I'll try to keep that line

You have been attacking Zhang Yu for incompetence, accused him of being liar, of being a dumb dumb and even going as far as to claim he slandered all of Ancient China, you constantly say Zhang Yu was insulting rather then prophecy. I would hate to see what you did to someone you dislike :wink:

I think you missed the wider point I was making there when I mentioned the stars. As for how, the actual method used is lost to us and that isn't Zhang Yu's fault, that is the Shu records or whoever was in charge of the case not delving into case properly to get full details. For all we know, he literally looked up at the stars and got that prediction. It could be the fall of the Han predictions were a lot more numerous then winner comes from west played a part? If he had non prophecy based doubts, I can only speculate. Liu Bei is old and who knows what Zhang Yu knew of the heirs, there had been problems in the administration like Fa Zhang, near bankruptcy, failure with the history work, there were issues with Liu Bei's senior commanders, he may not have felt much of the army. Again, we lack the details to judge what Zhang Yu made the claims on, not Zhang Yu's fault

The debate is indeed between me and you. I'm also pointing out your attacks on Zhang Yu go against everyone else and when one is alone in the type of thinking, it is best to have a think as to why that is.


I dont use lmao against 1) Your character 2) Your point 3) as support for my stand. So this particular argument doesnt really work out. This is if course in contrast to your sarcasm which does not support your point whatsoever.

You are exaggerating. I said he slandered Han loyalists not Ancient China. With Ancient China being the time and place. Next, I gave reasoning to support my arguments.

Sure sure. Or maybe he did not give reasonings for prophecy and was not backed by political realities.

Yes. And I already said many times, the historians dont attack him because he was proven correct. And also, Lady Wu felt words were misspoken.

True, one person of unknown motive did for whatever reason.

Your the one that claimed he said it sucked. Personally I'm not a fan of fairweather prophets who will only predict the prevailing winds, if your going to have a prophet around then one that will give their honest view seems far better.

Rest I feel I covered above


Yeah, he felt uncomfortable enough to do so.

Sure. If said person first advice was not wrong... ...or if he gave reasoning... ...or if he was backed by political realities... ...

No... just no... you rebutt not dismiss points in a debate. If you dont want to debate just say so dont make a flimsy excuse and dismiss 1 paragraph worth of 6 stand backed by reasonings.

At this point Im sick of repeating my stand:

Zhang Yu did not

1) Give reasoning.

2) Said it a bad time where the East Han was barely in existence.

3) Was not backed up by political realities of his time by the fact that Liu Bei was on a winning streak.

Qiao Zhou did

1) Give reasoning using history, names and culture.

2) Said it at a time where the East Han was long over.

3) Was backed up by political realities in terms of Shu Han heavy decline.

We don't know Du Qiong's prophecies off the top of my head? Qiao Zhou did the opposite but he gave honest prophecy so got no issue with that.

The problem is, your attacking him based on the guess.

Why does the prophecy seem to have leaked out? I suspect when Zhang Yu got killed, people gossiped as to why. Having heard the prophecy may have had a certain... social advantage as people love secrets. Particularly 9 years later when you can say it came true


Yes we do... Du Qiong used Cao as his reasoning.

Qiao Zhou asked Du Qiong, "Zhou Shu once said that the 'something tall on the road' [in the popular saying 'something tall on the road will replace the Han (dynasty)'] refers to the state of Wei. Why do you think it is so?" Du Qiong replied, "Wei (魏) also refers to either of the two viewing towers at each gate of the imperial palace. It faces the road and stands out as a very tall structure from a distance away. (Because Wei was also the name of an ancient state,) the sages decided to use it as a double entendre." When Qiao Zhou sought clarification, Du Qiong further explained, "The term cao (曹) was never used to refer to the positions held by government officials in ancient times. This practice only started in the Han dynasty: clerks are called shu cao (屬曹) and guards are called shi cao (侍曹). This is probably Heaven's will."[12][a]

[12] (周因問曰:「昔周徵君以為當塗高者魏也,其義何也?」瓊荅曰:「魏,闕名也,當塗而高,聖人取類而言耳。」又問周曰:「寧復有所怪邪?」周曰:「未達也。」瓊又曰:「古者名官職不言曹;始自漢已來,名官盡言曹,吏言屬曹,卒言侍曹,此殆天意也。」) Sanguozhi vol. 42.

[a] Du Qiong was alluding to the replacement of the Eastern Han dynasty by the (Cao) Wei state of the Three Kingdoms period. The Cao family was the ruling family of the (Cao) Wei state. See Zhou Qun's article for more information.

Zhang Yu?! Heck yeah I am!

Sure.

The problem is you claimed one thing. I showed the text of the debate showed the exact opposite. Then you repeat your claim while quoting the proof against your claim. I am trying to figure out that happened


No. No. And No. Sigh, once again:

Heres my stand: I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges.

Hered my reference evidence: See clear slander and insulting their lords.

Whats there to figure out?

If it was embarrassing, maybe he shouldn't execute? I'm not sure giving a snippy one liner when Zhuge Liang is asking a genuine question about a man's life isn't wasting time (telling him fully afterwards wouldn't be that helpful). Prophecy is not spreading rumours but I suppose Lii Bei was helping explain Liu Bei did't like people being witter then him when Liu Bei is a guest and being rude

So we have the main sgz, giving gifts which was popular. We have people being pleased at the good governance and getting ranks they felt entitled to but no mention of kindness on that. Then the translator's personal view rather then the sgz


Great opinion. But Im not Liu Bei so... ... Getting your head of domestic affairs to shut up with a single line to safe time is a smart move actually. Instead of say... a back and forth... Stating opinions privately behind closed doors is spreading rumours.

Yeah yeah. I should just say : " I'm also pointing out your attacks on the definition of kindness go against everyone else and when one is alone in the type of thinking, it is best to have a think as to why that is. : /s

Instead Im actually going to rebutt your point using modern day definition plus history. So Yayyy!! 8-) :D

First, the definition of kindness:

the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.
"he thanked them for their kindness and support"
synonyms: kindliness, kind-heartedness, warm-heartedness, tender-heartedness, goodwill, affectionateness, affection, warmth, gentleness, tenderness, concern, care; More
a kind act.
plural noun: kindnesses
"it would be a kindness on your part to invite her"
synonyms: kind act, good deed, act of kindness, good turn, favour, act of assistance, service, help, aid
"she has done us many a kindness"

Is Liu Bei accepting surrender of enemies a form of favour? Yes.

Is Liu Bei giving gifts to said individuals a form of generosity? Yes.

Is Liu Bei giving them ranks after said individuals were alienated by previous regime a form of affection? Yes.

So is Liu Bei accepting surrender of enemy forces and treating them nicely kindness? Yes.

Now Guan Zhong Wikipedia that is backed up by sources:

He is said to have indulged in a luxurious lifestyle.[7] Guan Zhong was also a pragmatist who did not equate a ruler's moral purity with his ability to govern. Duke Huan, who loved hunting and women, asked Guan if these indulgences would harm his hegemony, to which Guan replied that the ruler's love for luxury would not harm his hegemony. It would only be harmed through inappropriate staffing and misuse of talent.[8] One passage "recounts" Confucius as considering him "mediocre" for his lack of frugality and knowledge of ritual.[9]

=======

Liu Bei accepting surrender of enemies and giving them ranks is a form of appropriate stuffing and using of talent.

=======


Despite all this, he might be considered, "at least in most respects" an "ideal Confucian minister".[10] Guan Zhong is reported to have advised Duke Huan: 'Summon the wavering with courtesy and cherish the remote with virtuous conduct. So long as your virtuous conduct and courtesy never falter, there will be no one who does not cherish you.'" When Duke Huan was approached to dethrone the ruling clans of his state, Guan Zhong advised him that he had won their adherence through politeness (li) and trustworthiness (xin).

=======

Liu Bei receiving surrender of enemies and giving them gifts is virtuous conduct and courtesy.

=======

So now whats your claim that Liu Bei actions were not kindness? :wink:
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Academic
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:43 pm

Yes. Your personal experience is not relevant in terms of 3k China. Ive said this many times by now. I also have pointed to the many many times the historians address slander or contradictions. The SanGuoZhiZhu was recorded partly to fill in info plus also figure out the contradictions.


Right, human nature has no impact on 3kingdom china, neither does the nature of slander when discussing slander.

I have also pointed out many many times now that they didn't always do so. You just keep insisting that they would all do this for this one person even when they have left contradictions in his life already

I dont understand this paragraph at all. Are you sure you are replying correctly?

Not really.

Thats because it was too far back IIRC


Yes. Let me try again. What I did was actually done by two historians as it turned out, I could not have foreseen the way you have taken the prophecy given your reaction is (on the limited number we have) so unusual. It would be wrong for me to omit vital information but maybe you should take it as you and I simply had two very different readings and since nobody else read it same way as you, there wasn't a reasonable expectation of me to predict the way you would have read it.

but you seem unable to remember anything. How is that not concerning?

When listing the list of what you forget, I actually said it was understandable that you forgot I posted a Zhang Yu link. You then denied you forgot it which is why we have been discussing it.

Not really. You asked reasons for my statements. I provided reasons for my statements. I didnt mix up anything lmao.

1) Yes and Yes.

2) Yes. Deny what?

3) When you first type out your source, you did not state it was a book. Later on you said its a book, I apologise for being inconsiderate. Deny what?

4) You did posted quotes. I never admit I forgot... because I never forgot.

No and No.


The link thing.

I never admitted I forgot. For what its worth. The link was too far back and was very similar to the kongming one.


1) Yay

2) Well you could either look back through, you could look at the context of the debate, you could read the sentence I put that you then denied and work it out. Come on, give it a try

3) I had stated that it was Qiao Zhou's book before hand
On the Qiao Zhou thing? Farmer's book, quoting Du Qiong's sgz (Qiao Zhou put both of his "Shu will fall" down to following Du Qiong's work)
and of course we had discussed Farmer's book before so when I said
Ok large passage, quotes are from when Farmer quotes the sgz and italics are me.
, that might have hinted. Thanks for the apology but since you were told it was a book, was told it was from Farmer, I don't see how "didn't realize" isn't you forgetting

4) Bar all the times you forgot. Like being told it was a book, like Zhang Yu link, like Kong Rong

We are talking about your forgetting, you then go onto mutually exclusive when I had never claimed that

Sure.

Except I already did many times. Qiao used history( Duke) as examples, names as reasoning and downfalls as evidence. Theres your connection.


I agree, Qiao Zhou used it as examples of how it worked which I have always agreed. Not that Liu Bei and the dynasty was connected to Duke of Jin

I dont use lmao against 1) Your character 2) Your point 3) as support for my stand. So this particular argument doesnt really work out. This is if course in contrast to your sarcasm which does not support your point whatsoever.

You are exaggerating. I said he slandered Han loyalists not Ancient China. With Ancient China being the time and place. Next, I gave reasoning to support my arguments.

Sure sure. Or maybe he did not give reasonings for prophecy and was not backed by political realities.

Yes. And I already said many times, the historians dont attack him because he was proven correct. And also, Lady Wu felt words were misspoken.


Leaving your sudden burst of lmao that amazingly happens just after I asked you not to, you do tend to use it for point 2. Like the Guan Yu's fame in another discussion for example. I did explain what my sarcasm also addressed

You literally said
Add all this and yes it is prediction, but its also slander to the Ancient Chinese.
. How am I exaggerating by using what you say? You do make reasoning to try to justify insulting and slandering Zhang Yu yes, doesn't make them any good or make it nice that your slandering someone.

Possible but you can't know that and have no justification for slander.

You have said it many times indeed. I think that is not Lady Wu view herself but translation off the top of my head?

eah, he felt uncomfortable enough to do so.

Sure. If said person first advice was not wrong... ...or if he gave reasoning... ...or if he was backed by political realities... ...

No... just no... you rebutt not dismiss points in a debate. If you dont want to debate just say so dont make a flimsy excuse and dismiss 1 paragraph worth of 6 stand backed by reasonings.

At this point Im sick of repeating my stand:

Zhang Yu did not

1) Give reasoning.

2) Said it a bad time where the East Han was barely in existence.

3) Was not backed up by political realities of his time by the fact that Liu Bei was on a winning streak.

Qiao Zhou did

1) Give reasoning using history, names and culture.

2) Said it at a time where the East Han was long over.

3) Was backed up by political realities in terms of Shu Han heavy decline.


Unknown if that is the case

Oh I agree his advice not to attack Hanzhong was awful as was Zhuge Liang's hesitation about the attack. For all we know he did but it was unrecorded. I have given political realities he could have based his views on

I covered the reasoning, timing, the political realities of Zhang Yu. Is it the Qiao Zhou bit you wanted me to discuss? Also if your sick of doing it, why object when I'm frustrated at having to do it repeatedly?

1) Yep, thank goodness for him his student wrote the histories and recorded it

2) So kicking when they are down?

3) Agreed

and he still undermined the very legitimacy of Shu. I have no issues with Qiao Zhou's prophesying the fall of Shu, I do think attacking the very legitimacy is bad form though

Yes we do... Du Qiong used Cao as his reasoning.

Qiao Zhou asked Du Qiong, "Zhou Shu once said that the 'something tall on the road' [in the popular saying 'something tall on the road will replace the Han (dynasty)'] refers to the state of Wei. Why do you think it is so?" Du Qiong replied, "Wei (魏) also refers to either of the two viewing towers at each gate of the imperial palace. It faces the road and stands out as a very tall structure from a distance away. (Because Wei was also the name of an ancient state,) the sages decided to use it as a double entendre." When Qiao Zhou sought clarification, Du Qiong further explained, "The term cao (曹) was never used to refer to the positions held by government officials in ancient times. This practice only started in the Han dynasty: clerks are called shu cao (屬曹) and guards are called shi cao (侍曹). This is probably Heaven's will."[12][a]

[12] (周因問曰:「昔周徵君以為當塗高者魏也,其義何也?」瓊荅曰:「魏,闕名也,當塗而高,聖人取類而言耳。」又問周曰:「寧復有所怪邪?」周曰:「未達也。」瓊又曰:「古者名官職不言曹;始自漢已來,名官盡言曹,吏言屬曹,卒言侍曹,此殆天意也。」) Sanguozhi vol. 42.

[a] Du Qiong was alluding to the replacement of the Eastern Han dynasty by the (Cao) Wei state of the Three Kingdoms period. The Cao family was the ruling family of the (Cao) Wei state. See Zhou Qun's article for more information.


Thanks and I hold my hands up, that was my bad. I did forget

No. No. And No. Sigh, once again:

Heres my stand: I agreed that Kong Rong slandering to envoy was main charges.

Hered my reference evidence: See clear slander and insulting their lords.

Whats there to figure out?


Yes, yes you did start with that. So yay agreement

Then I pointed out the claim about Kong Rong slandering to Wu envoy was a lie by Chi Lu and co which you accepted with "Fair enough". That is the bit you seem to keep missing

Great opinion. But Im not Liu Bei so... ... Getting your head of domestic affairs to shut up with a single line to safe time is a smart move actually. Instead of say... a back and forth... Stating opinions privately behind closed doors is spreading rumours.

Yeah yeah. I should just say : " I'm also pointing out your attacks on the definition of kindness go against everyone else and when one is alone in the type of thinking, it is best to have a think as to why that is. : /s

*snip rest*


So keeping your chief civil officer in the dark over an execution is a good thing? Really? No prophecy is not rumours

but you have quoted no historian saying Liu Bei's specific act was kindness. You keep quoting me passages that don't say he was being kind at all.

Sure, I accept for you, doing things in your own self interest is kindness. You have been consistent on that throughout, Cao Cao with Zhang Xiu for example. I think kindness requires you going beyond self interest and doing your job. Which is fine, we can agree to disagree on the definition but you need to quote examples of his being praised for being kind in that act if your argue that act was seen as kind.

We both agree Liu Bei was kind. We just disagree on the incident itself being kind
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15347
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Previous

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved