Mike Sigman wrote:
Really, Erick. In your now-seemingly-ingrained habit, you just look for something to argue, even when you don't know what you're talking about. You think Yin and Yang are solely Taoist concepts?
Mozi too much for you ?
It is easy to dismiss with trivial observations what you do not really wish to comprehend. The fact that yin/yang concepts informed many other streams of Chinese culture and its adopted daughters, is not arguable. Of course, I didn't argue it. Taoism informs Chinese culture generally, as it informs Japanese and Korean culture generally. So what? It was a point I did not dispute. They are hardly the only ideas originating in China nor even the most influential in a given circumstance.
Nor does it matter for this purpose. I only made the point that your levelling assumptions about their predominance in his work are overwrought and wrong.
That aspect of O Sensei's teaching is neither novel nor exceptional. There are novel and exceptional aspects of his art in the context of Japan that are not so easily trivialized as seem wont to do. Those aspects have no reference to the yin-yang cosmology that you assume to predominate everything else. I have pointed some of them out, with refernces both to Western cosmological thought as well as Mohist doctrines that are spot on point. Whether this was his own pastiche or an amalgam of Omoto concepts, does not matter if you want to understand what he thought and why he thought it in the context of the art that he taught.