Fung Shui Is Evil

Nina Wang isn't exactly the model example of a hapless poor woman scammed by an evil Fung Shui master; as revealed in today's testimony, Wang attempted to unduly influence the outcome of WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG by requesting mainland Chinese interference.

Yet, you are correct to point out Chinese superstitions, including their belief of 'Fung Shui' - a mystical 'art' based on the I Ching, is responsible for the impediment of progress in Chinese civilization. The abscence of scientific methodologies is still evident in fields like political theory and history, which have been most resistance to Western thought. The 'Fung Shui' way of thinking in particular, distorts the Chinese perception of life: ie, in order to balance the natural forces which are permanently in flux (wu chang), supernatural stategies, instead of human behavior, must be employed to maintain the status quo that is beyond human control. If there are truly any merits about the debate over Asian v Universal/Western values, Fung Shui may well hold the key to an interesting cross-cultural examination of attitudes.

And might I also add, Feng Shui/I Ching predates Confucianism and both, though they are generally regarded as philosophies, are more similar to religions in Chinese-based societies. Banning the practice or the 'profession' of Fung Shui is like banning monetary contributions to the church.

The unconditional surrendering of one's soul to Fung Shui is as stupid as the practice of unconditional surrendering to religions and political ideology without clear consideration of what is real. Look at how the current banking debacle. It is the result of blind faith in creative derivatives and capitalism. Look at how Christianity almost destroyed the civilization of Europe.

Shouldn't you have the same feeling towards masseurs ?

How could Feng Shui practitioners become "professionals" in a modern sense? Do they have a professional association of some sort that comprises of individual professionals who share the same knowledge base, and deliver professional services in accordance with a set of establish code of conduct?

Well, Fengshui, like many traditional cultures, is neither angile nor evil.

Nina's Feng Shui master resembles the like of Madoff. By scrupulously building up a false sense of trust, the perpetrators went all out to cheat their clients.

So is Feng Shui evil? Not necessary, though it can be. It depends on who does the talking.

Not unlike para-psychology, it can only be taken as a para-science. With some elements of scientific truth, it largely plays on human weakness and subconscious, pouncing perpetually on the innocent – perhaps nursing an ugly ulterior motive all the time.

In short, avoid it if you can.
(Tan Boon Tee)

This story really shows that China is a free country. People can do whatever they want and get rich quick. Filthy rich at that. With enough money, you can get out of jail free too. And it also confirms what Jackie Chan has been saying: Chinese need to be controlled, tight control.

Some 25 years ago I attended a lecture by a Harvard-trained architect who had researched old Chinese landscape sites. His conclusion was that the feng shui principles (called "geomancy" by historians of Chinese science such as Joseph Needham) governing the siting of burial tombs and houses should be seen not so much as "religion" or "superstition", but as principles for landscape architecture and design. He found that buildings sited according to such principles were invariably beautifully and harmoniously blended into the natural surroundings. Such beautiful and harmonious surroundings would naturally have positive psychological and emotional (and even spiritual) effects on the inhabitants. This then can explain the way feng shui "works" -- it does so not as something "supernatural" at all, but rather as something which has entirely natural and practical effects on daily life.

This is not to say that there are not feng shui charlatans and quacks out there - it would appear there are many. But it only means we need better practitioners of the real feng shui, not that feng shui itself is defective or "evil". How to get better practitioners is difficult social and political problem. In other fields such as allopathic medicine, the 19th and 20th century drives towards professional training, licensing and legal barriers to entry offer some degree of public expectation of competence (although some would criticize these benefits as illusory conspiracies against the public for the benefit and power of monopolistic guilds). This has yet to (and may never) occur for feng shui practitioners.

A book on google books called "Architect's guide to feng shui" By Cate Bramble offers a distinction between the real feng shui (which is learned through deep study for many years) and what she terms "McFengshui" - the feng-shui lite marketed and purveyed by overpromising and underdelivering scammers.

She writes (page 61): "The scientifically valid claims that relate to feng shui primarily rely on evidence regarding the effects of the natural environment on human physiology, behavior and psychology....An unqualified, general claim of environmental benefit may communicate that a service provides extensive environmental benefits when it in fact it [sic] does not--unfortunately this is all too often the case with feng-shui marketing."

I would hope that Liam Fitzpatrick keep an open mind to serious feng shui, since rejecting the real thing solely on the basis of the egregiously bad behavior of some high-profile practitioners who abuse the trust of their supporters would be as absurd as rejecting real Christianity solely on the basis of the egregiously bad behavior of some high-profile Republican politicians who abuse the trust of their supporters.

bylooker,

The debate about universal values isn't simply a descriptive question; it's also a prescriptive issue. No one can claim without controversy that Western values are, empirically, universal values. So you are right to point out that the two do no equate in fact.

Yet, the reason why people talk about Western values as if they were universal values is because they prescribe to be. This makes no judgment on whether these 'Western' values are good or bad, or whether 'spreading the word' is an acceptable thing to do. You may be disdainful of the West for preaching its values as if they were applicable to the whole of humanity but you can't deny that the West hopes and tries to make these values applicable to all.

On the other hand, Asian values (including Sinic but excluding Islamic) have never been, or aspired to become, universal values. They are mostly self-concerned and self-contained. The isolationist culture of Japan is a prime example. Confucianism is another – though it has lately made efforts to establish Confucius schools around the world.

In relation to Feng Shui, however, it's not entirely fair that you conflate the practice of Feng Shui with the concept of Asian values. Feng Shui may embody some Chinese values, arguably many less desirable ones, but that does not make it a value per se.

Moreover, your argument that a majority status equals to a higher claim to universalism is also self-defeating. English is a more common language than Chinese (re: language). There are more liberal democracies than authoritarian or closed regimes (re: political theory). There are more people living below the poverty line than there are millionaires (re: market economics). There are more people practicing Abrahamic religions than Sinic (re: religion). There are more ants than mammals (including homo sapiens) (re: system of society). None of these empirical observations are relevant to the merit of ideas itself; at most, they only indicate or evidence a trend, ie the favorability of Keynesian market economics recently.

Nevertheless, you mention world peace and on that point, I'm entirely with you. But the problem is that the debate about incorporating 'Asian values' into a universal set of values has often been impeded by a lack of good faith. Mao attempted to spread his concept of ‘universal values' by sponsoring Marxist revolution around the world. Marxism, as we all know, originated in the West. Chinese leaders have now dropped that pretense but have gone to another extreme by denouncing ideas and values that threaten their political power as Western-created boogey men (ie democracy and human rights), thus unworthy of universal status. A constructive academic debate takes on a whole new Machiavellian turn.

I believe if the Chinese ceased to fight a counterproductive warfare against this perceived tide of Western-exclusive imperialism of values, and instead, join the international community to forge a set of values applicable to humanity (no easy task and conditional on good faith) they will find a themselves a much more tolerant audience at home and in the West. To dismiss that as wishful thinking ignores the progress Confucianism has made in recent years in promoting harmony, courtesy and humility, now often quoted in Presidential speeches and as academic reference points.

As an end note, I have to qualify by saying I'm not entirely convinced about this Western v Asian dichotomy. Values change and have a tendency to converge. They are also the result of a civilization's language, history, religion and culture. Often categorizing something or someone as Asian or Western says more about its historic and cultural background than the substance of the value itself.

Immanuel
"you can't deny that the West hopes and tries to make these values applicable to all."
It says it all. Does it not?
One god religion produces colonialism and colonialism produces the urge to dominate the world by ideology.
Submit yourself to it and you will be a slave forever.

No it doesn't. Colonialism is unacceptable because of the means used to promote it; it is also intrinsically racist and discriminatory. The values promoted by liberal democracies are universal peace, equality and justice. I would agree that Iraq does not fit in that criteria - which is why the whole Europe and half (or more) of the U.S. was so opposed to it. The West isn't and wasn't represented by one George W. Bush and his cronies.

So unless you have something against those ideals (which even Communism aims to achieve) - and you have a right to do so - how is there 'domination', by which illegal force is implied, in your sense?

I, and many others I am sure, would love to live in a world without ideology (c.f. John Lennon's Imagine). Yet, every country in the world, including China, is ideologically based on some form of Western ideology: socialist, liberal democratic, Marxist, fascist. Indeed, if you have a better theory of government, I would be interested in hearing it. But for now, as a practical compromise, it seems liberal democracy has the upper hand for being the "least worst form" of government.