The Mysterious Taiji Symbols at Expo 2010

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by XingyiMax, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. XingyiMax

    XingyiMax Valued Member

  2. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    That was where I originally had read about the symbol being used by the Roman military as an insignia. It's crucial to point out that the concept(s) behind the symbol in eastern and western cultures are completely different. The Chinese version of the symbol the Yin Yang symbol is entirely based in Chinese cosmology.

    In Chinese culture the first instance of the Taiji concept (太極) makes it's appearance in the third century BC of the Warring States Period (453-221 BC). The Bronze age of China was bloody and destruction was widespread as the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770-256 BC) slowly disintegrated, giving way to the Qin state. Eventually the Qin state through it's military might was able to unify China and become the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC).

    It's during this time (approx. third century BC) that the Zhouyi, or Book of Changes is developed. However originally the Taiji concept wasn't associated with any ideograms that we now commonly associate it with eg. the Yin Yang symbol or Taiji tu (太極圖) . In fact the Taiji concept and Yin Yang theory actually are two very distinct ways of viewing the universe. The Yin Yang concept and it's symbolism don't make an appearance in Chinese culture until around the 5th century BC.

    Tackling the history of the symbol in Chinese culture draws you necessarily into a complex mix of both Confucian,Taoist and Buddhist philosophy with a heady dose of Chinese geomancy or Feng Shui (風水).
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  3. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    I saw that too. But although its meaning may have come to be different per different culture, it may be too coincidental. There is a possibility that either China or Romans shared-exchanged it.

    If I stand corrected,

    The Yin Yang concept-China, 5th century BC.

    The Notitia Dignitatum (Roman) 5th century AD
     
  4. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    At this point according to my research if it was shared or migrated the only way it would make sense was if it went from East to West. Given the differences in first appearances - based on historical record we know now.

    Yes that is essentially correct. Thus reinforcing the the migration or transmission if it happened at all would have been from east to west.

    Personally I don't put much into the concept that there was transfer of the symbol from east to west. To my way of thinking so far there is too much difference in the usage and theory behind the symbol in their respective cultures to make it more than coincidence. I tend to support the idea of simultaneous development of the symbol. It's two entirely different meanings, lack of archaeological record showing any transmission between the two cultures and vast differences in date of instance to me would seem to support this.
     
  5. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    I could agree, but then again, as always, I like looking at things per advocatus diaboli (disambiguation).

    If the Chinese symbol came centuries before the Roman;

    * It would give it the alotted time to reach Roman

    * The translation would be lost from this long time.

    * As with anything, one idea behind a symbol used somewhere else, would be transformed to suit the new user, thus the idea would change, but not the symbol.

    * The simularities on two of the shields are uncanny duplicate designs as the East

    * Although there maybe a lack of archaeological record showing any transmission, this could not be a conclusion of it not being possible.


    (Only a few thoughts)
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  6. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    By all means - playing the devil's advocate is all fine and well but... my point is not that the transmission of the symbol from China to Rome is impossible... only based on the evidence we have now... it's improbable.

    Perhaps no so uncanny when you consider the concept of simultaneous development. Pictograms and ideograms all have to start somewhere and there are only so many basic geometric shapes that will be used. As we can see with the swastikas in my earlier post there are almost as many uses as there are origin points as there are different cultures using them. Why wouldn't it be the same for a symbol the Chinese Yin Yang symbol or the Roman Notitia Dignitatum? Furthermore we can see that the ceramic artifacts from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture which flourished between 5500 BC and 2750 BC also bear a striking resemblance in shape and form to the Chinese Yin Yang symbol.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  7. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    I can agree and support simultaneous development (per-).

    Like mathematics, geometric shapes are unniversal.

    Because something is in one culture, doesnt mean another had not visited that culture and retrieved the icon and there is a chance without any archaeological record.

    It is hard to dismiss the main facts;

    Both are on the same continent

    Both are known to travel abroad for great distances

    The symbol is too well duplicated
     
  8. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    No of course it doesn't. But until you provide any substantial evidence that supports a theory of transmission it's only conjecture. Interesting to toss around but still only conjecture that is entirely unsupported by any data.

    I haven't dismissed any of them. I don't think any of what you've posted as facts necessarily support any theory of transmission. It takes a lot more than that to support the theory beyond just mere conjecture.
    Both of what are on the same continent?
    The Chinese and the Romans?
    Umm... no. This is blinkered thinking. You're making the assumption that

    A) the symbol is duplicated - which denies that it could have been simultaneously developed and independantly.

    B) That there is some qualitative standard that defines one as 'better' than the other. It's not an issue of aesthetics.
     
  9. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    I am not making any asssumption for either A or B

    I thought we were in a rhetorical discussion.
     
  10. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Not quite sure I get you. Please explain.
     
  11. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Simply, we are in a discussion about the origin of something.

    It almost cannot be completely proven from either side.

    This is like two professors talking about something in opposite views.

    Rhetorical conversations do not have to have supported data and can be done even on ideas of theory.

    (Geez, for awhile there, I thought I was on one of those Relgious-God or Chi threads)
     
  12. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    hahahaha... yeah those threads on Chi and God are best avoided (says the topic MOD for the religion and Off Topic forums).

    For this thread though I think it's important to draw distinctions between conjecture and what the historical/archaeological record show to date. Sure by all means feel free to throw out there thoughts on what could be... but when you do... just know that people are going to call on evidence to support those theories.

    When you state that Roman Notitia Dignitatum are "uncanny duplicate designs as the East" it's and implicit assumption that it's been copied from something. In this it implies that the Romans copied it from the Chinese. To this point there is simply no evidence to support this at all. So I don't really view this thread as a rhetorical conversation. At least not by the definition of 'rhetorical' that I'd normally use.

    But no harm in tossing around ideas at all. :)
     
  13. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    I agree.

    By definition and etymology, words can take upon different meanings.

    Evidence to support. LOL. Thats why I used those other subjects. The burden of proof rest upon the theorists or claimants?
     

Share This Page