of circling around it, often carries one too far. It is
not so much what you believe in that matters, as the way in which you believe it and
proceed to translate that belief into action. By "D^" for the Japanese I am referring
to their fanatic loyalty to their emperor and to the state, made possible by a low
mixture of humor. For idealism must stand for different things in different countries,
as the so-called sense of humor really comprises a very wide variety of things. ...
There is an interesting tug between idealism and realism in America, both given high
figures, and that produces the energy characteristic of the Americans. What American
idealism is, I had better leave it to the Americans to find out; but they are always
enthusiastic about something or other. A great deal of this idealism is noble, in
the sense that the Americans are easily appealed to by noble ideals or noble words;
but some of it is mere gullibility. The American sense of humor again means a different
thing from the Continental sense of humor, but really I think that, such as it is
(the love of fun and an innate, broad common sense), it is the greatest asset of the
American nation. In the coming years of critical change, they will have great need
of that broad common sense referred to by James Bryce, which I hope will tide them
over these critical times. I give American sensitivity a low figure because of my
impression that they can stand so many things. There is no use quarreling about this,
because we will be quarreling about words. . . . The English seem to be on the whole
the soundest race: contrast their "RsDz" with the French "R^D-i. " I am all for '^Dz."
It bespeaks stability. The ideal formula for me would seem to be R3D; I-^Sz, for too
much idealism or too much sensitivity is not a good thing, either. And if I give "Si"
for English sensitivity, and if that is too low, who is to blame for it except the
English themselves ? How can I tell whether the English ever feel anything joy,
happiness, anger, satisfaction when they are determined to look so glum on all
occasions?
We might apply the same formula to writers and poets. To take a few well-known types:
Shakespeare = R4D4H3S4
Heine = R3D3H4S.-,
Shelley = R^H^
Poe = R3D4HiS4
Li Po = RiD3HzS4
Tu Fu = R3D3HzS4
Su Tungp'o = R3D^H4S3 These are no more than a few impromptu suggestions. But
it is clear that all poets have a high sensitivity, or they wouldn't be poets at all.
Poe, I feel, is a very sound genius, in spite of his weird imaginative gift. Doesn't
he love "ratiocination"?
So my formula for the Chinese national mind is:
R4D.H3S3%本%作%品%由%%網%提%供%下%載%與%在%線%閱%讀%
There we start with an "S}", standing for high sensitivity, which guarantees a proper
artistic approach to life and answers for the Chinese affirmation that this earthly
life is beautiful and the consequent intense love of this life. But it signifies more
than that; actually it
I have hesitated a long time between giving Shakespeare "84" and "83". Finally
his "Sonnets" decided it. No school teacher has experienced greater fear and trembling
in grading a pupil than I in trying to grade Shakespeare. Stands for the artistic
approach even to philosophy. It accounts for the fact that the Chinese philosopher's
view of life is essentially the poet's view of life, and that, in China, philosophy
is married to poetry rather than to science as it is in the West. It will become amply
clear from what follows that this high sensitivity to the pleasures and pains and
flux and change of the colors of life is the very basis that makes a light philosophy
possible. Man's sense of the tragedy of life comes from his sensitive perception of
the tragedy of a departing spring, and a delicate tenderness toward life comes from
a tenderness toward the withered blossoms that bloomed yesterday. First the sadness
and sense of defeat, then the awakening and the laughter of the old rogue-philos