Undauntingly and uncompromisingly true to oneself.

Undauntingly and uncompromisingly true to oneself.
This stands for the two Chinese word characters: 狂狷.
I learned this word, when I was reading a book about
Chinese characters’ etymologies in the dialogue between Shirakawa
the Chinese character lexicon maker and a thinker Umehara.

Undauntingly and uncompromisingly true to oneself.
This word is in one of the Analects.
The connotation reminds me of Ludwig Wittgenstein.
If he was not a man of狂狷, he would not have produced
Logico-philosophicus Tractatus and other writings; his life of狂狷 episodes.

Undauntingly and uncompromisingly true to oneself.
However, the meaning mentioned seems to have been changed or deformed;
my degital dictionary defines "inflexible mind."
The original meaning of extraordinariness and eccentricity to go through
what it has been and question the very foundation is lost and deteriorated.

The connotation for the word “inflexible mind” sounds rather pragmatic;
it must have happened as the time went by.
When I checked with the digital dictionary, I felt I had been trapped by the scholars!
I said to myself, “How could you two guys tell the readers to stick to the original
meanings,
while the world has adopted a different sense and significance?”

Lately I’ve realized or come to see how such a gap was created,
when I noticed what I learned at school was too genteel to get along with the reality;
狂狷 could be an iceberg, though the two great scholars’ knowledge was acknowledged.
Now I make a list of obsolete ideas, which used to be approved and possibly
has been in school textbooks.

School teachers and scholars say that Yangmingism---one of
the major philosophical schools of Neo-Confucianism---is
the philosophy of revolution, while it has been the philosophy of
manslaughter and massacre. This was not new to them; it had
been rooted from the ancient China.

In Confucianism old or new, pertains the idea that
civilization and culture are in the center and in every directions
inhabit barbaric people, that are regarded as animals and treated as such.
They regard Japan as eastern barbaric country, Vietnam as southern barbaric one;
the Britain before the Opium War as western barbaric one,

Once you pay a visit to China, you are regarded one of their subject countries.
It has been alright to cheat and deceive barbarians, since they are non-humans.
Even after the Opium War, it was hard for Chinese people to recognize themselves
out of the way. So they had to be notified that they should not call the British people
Western Barbarians.

At the end of the 19th century, however, the Chinese officials came
to see Hirobumi Ito. (I came to know the other day that he had been
loved and respected as Korean consulate.) The two Chinese wanted
to modernize China and asked Ito what was important to abolish
the old establishment. Itoh told them to stop calling the others barbarians.

About 27 years ago the Chinese military fired at the unarmed Vietnamese,
who were standing on the island shore, claiming the island.
The Chinese soldiers had been instilled that the island belonged
to China. Why didn’t our teachers tell us exactly what differences
the Chinese ethno-centralism means?