233 Notes Notes to Introduction 1. Edward Said, Orientalism (Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1985), p. 321. 2. J. J. Clarke, Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian and Western Thought (New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 42. 3. See Voltaire, Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations et sur les principaux faits de l’histoire depuis Charlemagne jusqu’à Louis XIII (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 1993). 4. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), p. 259. 5. Lu Xun, “Wenhua pianzhi lun,” in Lun Xun Quanji (Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1981), pp. 44–62. 6. David A. Kelly, “Nietzsche and the Chinese Mind,” in Nietzsche and Asian Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 158. 7. Ibid., p. 155. 8. See Li Shicen, Nicai yu xiandai zhexue (Taibei: Zhengwen shuju, Minguo 60, 1971). 9. Roger Ames, “Nietzsche’s ‘Will to Power’ and Chinese ‘Virtuality’,” in Nietzsche and Asian Thought, p. 132. 10. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Das Erbe Europas (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1989), p. 30. 11. Ibid., p. 158. 12. Quoted by John Van Bragt, “Translator’s Introduction,” In Religion and Nothingness, Keiji Nishitani (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), p. 28. 13. Fred Dallmayr, Beyond Orientalism: Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter (Albany: State University of New York Press), p. 41. 14. Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 1994), p. 269. 15. Gadamer, Das Erbe Europas, p. 7. 16. Ibid., p. 13. 17. Eberhard Scheiffele, “Questioning one’s Own from the Perspective of the Foreign,” in Nietzsche and Asian Thought, p. 42. 234 Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought Notes to Chapter 1 1. The propensity to find a kind of unity in change did not originate with Plato and Aristotle. It was also common to pre-Socratics such as Thales, who attempted to discover the basic “stuff” of which the universe is made. 2. Huainanzi, in Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, ed. Wing-tsit Chan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 306. 3. Chinese cosmological myths differ fundamentally from the Judeo-Christian account of origins in the sense that there is no single creator or divine will that imposes a seal of authority on the act of creation. Instead there are many creation myths and no one story enjoys preponderance. In religious Daoism, the idea of a creator God is common, and Laozi himself is sometimes depicted in this way. 4. There is no single author to whom the text of the Yijing can be attributed and the text itself evolved over many centuries. For example, mythological accounts maintain that Fu Xi, King Wen, and the Duke of Zhou are responsible for the work. Historical accounts maintain that Wu Xian may have developed the practice of divination using yarrow sticks. Confucius is assumed to have written some of the extensive commentaries. Confucian scholars of the Han period may have contributed to the organization of the hexagrams according to combinations of eight trigrams, which are said to reflect the structure of the universe. Wang Bi developed an organizational structure through inversion of hexagrams. Shao Yong of the Song period is said to have developed structures by which the dual lines evolve into the trigrams which are followed by quadrigrams until the sixty-four hexagrams are developed. See Cyrille Javary, Understanding the I Ching (Boston: Shambala Press, 1997). 5. Cyrille Javary, Understanding the I Ching, p. 6. 6. Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992), pp. 49–50. 7. The I Ching or Book of Changes, trans. Richard Wilhelm (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 286. 8. Ibid., p. 294. 9. While there is no evidence that Nietzsche encountered Daoist texts, the idea of the eternal return bears a remarkable similarity to Asian modes of thinking. This may be due to Nietzsche’s encounter with Buddhist thought, which espouses the notion of dependent origination. According to this perception, reality is seen as a web of interrelations, each giving birth to the other. 10. Jacques Derrida claims that Heidegger deliberately brackets terms such as Geist, subjectivity, and consciousness in order to avoid falling into the Cartesian trap where mind and matter confronted each other across a divide. See Jacques Derrida, Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989). 11. Otto Pöggeler, Der Denkweg Martin Heideggers (Stuttgart: Verlag Günter Neske, 1963), p. 70. 12. John Caputo, The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought (Oberlin, Ohio: Oberlin...