zhi

September 29, 2005

I had a chance to talk to Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye about the issue of

zhi at greater length today. As it turns out, Feng Ye and Nigel are

in a bit of a disagreement about the term. Nigel favors mind as a

translation because it can be used in a wider context and is more

inclusive of the variety of meanings that zhi has. Feng Ye agrees

that 'will' is lacking in versatility and cannot convey certain

aspects, such as the effects of medicinal treatment, but he doesn't

consider it to be an incorrect translation. After he has clarified

his position, I see that I didn't completely understand the issue and

his take on the matter before. He showed me a variety of sources, the

most useful of which is a neijing dictionary (Jason, it is a good

book, a somewhat rare book from the PRC by renmin weisheng publ., I'll

bring you a copy when I next go to Boulder- it will be useful for your

project). The neijing dictionary has concordance listings of how many

times each entry appears, and has definitions and explanations for

usage in different passages. Even within the neijing alone, there are

six definitions. One of the definitions is basically that of will.

Another is closer to thought, another to emotion, another to record,

remember, another closer to consciousness, and finally another

definition referring to kidney qi and essence. Mike, this final one

actually contains the equivalent line that you expected to see- the

kidney stores essence, the essence is the abobe of the zhi (shen cang

jing, jing she zhi- Lingshu 8). There is even an interesting

sentence that I don't totally understand- the essence of water is zhi?

(shui zhi jing wei zhi ¤ô¤§ºë & #20026;§Ó)

Anyway, at the end of the day I am faced with the evidence that a

could case can be made for will or mind. There is a slight dispute

between Nigel and Feng Ye and each has some valid arguments and some

similar points of agreement. Finally, Zhu Jian-Ping's term research

in China (Prof. Zhu is a big shot in this field) defines it as zhi

xiang, aspiration, ideal, ambition, which is much closer to will.

So I am retracting from the more extreme fringes of my opinion, but I

have learned a lot in the process. I have also gained one step of

greater insight into the extreme difficulty that people face when

choosing terms because of the multiple potential meanings that some of

these things have- particularly things that are more philosophical

and less oriented in therapy such as the five minds (AKA the five zhi).

Sorry to raise so much fuss without a more clearly correct answer

behind me.

Apparently zhi used to have a zhi (as in stop) radical above the heart

instead of a shi radical ¤h. In that context, zhi (the zhi as in stop

¤î) is used as direction, as in the place where the compass stops.

Thus, some connotation of direction of the heart.

Eric

September 29, 2005

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:31 AM

>

> zhi

>

> I had a chance to talk to Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye about the issue of

> zhi at greater length today. As it turns out, Feng Ye and Nigel are

> in a bit of a disagreement about the term. Nigel favors mind as a

> translation because it can be used in a wider context and is more

> inclusive of the variety of meanings that zhi has. Feng Ye agrees

> that 'will' is lacking in versatility and cannot convey certain

> aspects, such as the effects of medicinal treatment, but he doesn't

> consider it to be an incorrect translation. After he has clarified

> his position, I see that I didn't completely understand the issue and

> his take on the matter before. He showed me a variety of sources, the

> most useful of which is a neijing dictionary (Jason, it is a good

> book, a somewhat rare book from the PRC by renmin weisheng publ., I'll

> bring you a copy when I next go to Boulder- it will be useful for your

> project).

That would be nice, and would be much easier than me going through line by

line (with many traditional characters) in many books like I had to do...

But it is funny we both pretty much came up with the same conclusion, and

both learned a lot.

The neijing dictionary has concordance listings of how many

> times each entry appears, and has definitions and explanations for

> usage in different passages. Even within the neijing alone, there are

> six definitions. One of the definitions is basically that of will.

> Another is closer to thought, another to emotion, another to record,

> remember, another closer to consciousness, and finally another

> definition referring to kidney qi and essence. Mike, this final one

> actually contains the equivalent line that you expected to see- the

> kidney stores essence, the essence is the abobe of the zhi (shen cang

> jing, jing she zhi- Lingshu 8). There is even an interesting

> sentence that I don't totally understand- the essence of water is zhi?

> (shui zhi jing wei zhi ¤ô¤§ºë & #20026;§Ó)

>

> Anyway, at the end of the day I am faced with the evidence that a

> could case can be made for will or mind. There is a slight dispute

> between Nigel and Feng Ye and each has some valid arguments and some

> similar points of agreement. Finally, Zhu Jian-Ping's term research

> in China (Prof. Zhu is a big shot in this field) defines it as zhi

> xiang, aspiration, ideal, ambition, which is much closer to will.

>

> So I am retracting from the more extreme fringes of my opinion, but I

> have learned a lot in the process. I have also gained one step of

> greater insight into the extreme difficulty that people face when

> choosing terms because of the multiple potential meanings that some of

> these things have- particularly things that are more philosophical

> and less oriented in therapy such as the five minds (AKA the five zhi).

>

> Sorry to raise so much fuss without a more clearly correct answer

> behind me.

No big at all, we all learned a GREAT deal, at least I did, I am thankful

for the convo.

-

September 29, 2005

I have also gained one step of

greater insight into the extreme difficulty that people face when

choosing terms because of the multiple potential meanings that some of

these things have- particularly things that are more philosophical

and less oriented in therapy such as the five minds (AKA the five zhi).

>>>>>

Eric

Does not this support those that state that standard english terms are not

always the best way to approach translation? Since this is so pervasive in

chinese i would think contextual translation (with addition of characters when

needed as Jason did) are the best approach?

Oakland, CA 94609

September 29, 2005

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Eric

> Does not this support those that state that standard english terms

are not always the best way to approach translation? Since this is so

pervasive in chinese i would think contextual translation (with

addition of characters when needed as Jason did) are the best approach?

The problem is that it is rarely crystal clear to the translator when

you get into these nebulous issues. Most of the data is Chinese is

pretty straightforward and isn't sticky on anywhere near the level

that this stuff is. On the ambiguious parts, the English should

maintain the same level of ambiguity that the Chinese does rather than

making a possibly false conclusion for the sake of simplicity. I know

that PD terminology attempts to be clear when the term is clear, and

corresponding open to interpretation when the Chinese is equally open

to interpretation. At least if you are using the same words the end

reader can see which concepts are loosely defined and which are

clearly defined. If the concepts in English can't be traced back to

the concept in Chinese, the end reader doesn't realize that the

original is using the same word for several different things and that

the concepts are linked. The reader gets a false sense of

understanding and easily falls victim to drawing incorrect conclusions

by translators of dubious skill. Newer translators aren't as

experienced as older ones and may not draw conclusions as correctly,

yet the few old-generation translators cannot make it through a

mountain of literature alone. We need some standards to at least have

a baseline of reliability when we encounter the work of different

authors who we do not know.

And of course, when the meaning is clear and obviously different than

a standard word for that character, the writer will translate it

differently (more accurately) and simply make a note in the text that

shows what the source word was in Chinese. There aren't that many of

these ambiguities to make them a true encumberance in this regard, and

it really is an appropriate and professional thing to do.

Eric

September 29, 2005

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:16 PM

>

> Re: zhi

>

> , " "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Eric

> > Does not this support those that state that standard english terms

> are not always the best way to approach translation? Since this is so

> pervasive in chinese i would think contextual translation (with

> addition of characters when needed as Jason did) are the best approach?

>

> The problem is that it is rarely crystal clear to the translator when

> you get into these nebulous issues. Most of the data is Chinese is

> pretty straightforward and isn't sticky on anywhere near the level

> that this stuff is. On the ambiguious parts, the English should

> maintain the same level of ambiguity that the Chinese does rather than

> making a possibly false conclusion for the sake of simplicity. I know

> that PD terminology attempts to be clear when the term is clear, and

> corresponding open to interpretation when the Chinese is equally open

> to interpretation. At least if you are using the same words the end

> reader can see which concepts are loosely defined and which are

> clearly defined. If the concepts in English can't be traced back to

> the concept in Chinese, the end reader doesn't realize that the

> original is using the same word for several different things and that

> the concepts are linked. The reader gets a false sense of

> understanding and easily falls victim to drawing incorrect conclusions

> by translators of dubious skill. Newer translators aren't as

> experienced as older ones and may not draw conclusions as correctly,

> yet the few old-generation translators cannot make it through a

> mountain of literature alone. We need some standards to at least have

> a baseline of reliability when we encounter the work of different

> authors who we do not know.

>

I agree with your assessment, but the knife definitely cuts both ways.

Tracing it back does not guarantee any definite clarity many times. This

would be a good example. And that is even if the reader owns the PD and

even attempts to use it.. But hey that is the fault of the reader at that

point right?

-

> And of course, when the meaning is clear and obviously different than

> a standard word for that character, the writer will translate it

> differently (more accurately) and simply make a note in the text that

> shows what the source word was in Chinese. There aren't that many of

> these ambiguities to make them a true encumberance in this regard, and

> it really is an appropriate and professional thing to do.

>

> Eric

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

September 29, 2005

There aren't that many of

these ambiguities to make them a true encumberance in this regard, and

it really is an appropriate and professional thing to do.

>>>>>>

Do you think this is true for the classical literature as well? At least

according to PU there much that is ambiguous or even that we do not really know

what they ment. He gives the example of Jin (sinews).

Oakland, CA 94609

September 29, 2005

A further thought...

The argument is that we want the reader to be able to know the original

Chinese. Correct? Let's say Nigel adds zou biao to his term list and I use

'travel the exterior' How will the reader ever be able to get to zou biao /

the characters? It will not be in the PD. Any term that does not appear in

the PD which is probably over 50% (compared to the digital version) can

never be known by the reader. Therefore all terms are just pegged for the

translator. Therefore the term MUST be transparent in whatever context it

is in, so that the reader knows what the meaning is - they have no way to

check.

In our zhi situation, when referring to ling shu 8 - Why translate it as

mind, keeping it vague and murky (and actually conveying a slightly

incorrect meaning) in hopes that the reader consults the PD and somehow

figure out what it really means is 'ambition'. Which is impossible. Instead

of just translating it as will. Or at least 'will' with a footnote that

gives the definition from the commentary. I understand the desire to keep

the murkiness from many Chinese terms intact, but the Chinese readers have

the advantage of reading the commentary as they go along. Just presenting a

passage from the neijing with no commentary or clarity of terms (via

transparency), and expect the reader to consult the PD and gain insight into

the passage is a little far-fetched. Getting to the Chinese term for them

grants them nothing more than a false sense of security. They will have some

idea what 'mind' means and miss the boat. I guess the whole business is

murky all around...

-

>

> On Behalf Of

> Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:23 PM

>

> RE: zhi

>

> >

> > On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> > Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:16 PM

> >

> > Re: zhi

> >

> > , " "

> > <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > > Eric

> > > Does not this support those that state that standard english terms

> > are not always the best way to approach translation? Since this is so

> > pervasive in chinese i would think contextual translation (with

> > addition of characters when needed as Jason did) are the best approach?

> >

> > The problem is that it is rarely crystal clear to the translator when

> > you get into these nebulous issues. Most of the data is Chinese is

> > pretty straightforward and isn't sticky on anywhere near the level

> > that this stuff is. On the ambiguious parts, the English should

> > maintain the same level of ambiguity that the Chinese does rather than

> > making a possibly false conclusion for the sake of simplicity. I know

> > that PD terminology attempts to be clear when the term is clear, and

> > corresponding open to interpretation when the Chinese is equally open

> > to interpretation. At least if you are using the same words the end

> > reader can see which concepts are loosely defined and which are

> > clearly defined. If the concepts in English can't be traced back to

> > the concept in Chinese, the end reader doesn't realize that the

> > original is using the same word for several different things and that

> > the concepts are linked. The reader gets a false sense of

> > understanding and easily falls victim to drawing incorrect conclusions

> > by translators of dubious skill. Newer translators aren't as

> > experienced as older ones and may not draw conclusions as correctly,

> > yet the few old-generation translators cannot make it through a

> > mountain of literature alone. We need some standards to at least have

> > a baseline of reliability when we encounter the work of different

> > authors who we do not know.

> >

>

> I agree with your assessment, but the knife definitely cuts both ways.

> Tracing it back does not guarantee any definite clarity many times. This

> would be a good example. And that is even if the reader owns the PD and

> even attempts to use it.. But hey that is the fault of the reader at that

> point right?

>

> -

>

> > And of course, when the meaning is clear and obviously different than

> > a standard word for that character, the writer will translate it

> > differently (more accurately) and simply make a note in the text that

> > shows what the source word was in Chinese. There aren't that many of

> > these ambiguities to make them a true encumberance in this regard, and

> > it really is an appropriate and professional thing to do.

> >

> > Eric

> >

> > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> > board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> > free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

> >

September 29, 2005

Alon, Jason,

I brought up this point in the past, but I think that perhaps we

need to be clear about the role of dictionaries and glossaries in any

technical subject, including medicine. For mainstream CM material,

i.e. textbooks, patterns, technical terms, the Practical Dictionary

covers a large percentage of what is necessary. And, what is

necessary is to have reliable English term equivalents. However, for

more specialized subjects, such as the Mai Jing, Shang Han Lun, Wen

Bing Xue, and classical literature in general, specialized glossaries

may be necessary. Texts on this subject can supply it within the

same pages, or in the case of a huge project such as Paul Unschuld's

'Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen', separate glossaries and concordances will

be developed.

Nigel and Feng Ye are working as it turns out on an English

version of the 'Jin Gui Yao Lue', and what I've seen of the text has

substantial commentary, footnoting and terminology explained.

I don't think it is fair to draw the conclusions you've made

here, Alon, as only someone who is highly literate in both Chinese

and English has the luxury of choosing which term that is chosen to

tag onto the Chinese original. I think there is a consensus that

Chinese terms can change in context, and that there can be more than

one equivalent, however, until other authors publish their term

choices in glossaries and dictionaries, the Wiseman terminology will

remain the standard that is used.

On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:44 AM, wrote:

> I have also gained one step of

> greater insight into the extreme difficulty that people face when

> choosing terms because of the multiple potential meanings that some of

> these things have- particularly things that are more philosophical

> and less oriented in therapy such as the five minds (AKA the five

> zhi).

>

>>>>>>

> Eric

> Does not this support those that state that standard english terms

> are not always the best way to approach translation? Since this is

> so pervasive in chinese i would think contextual translation (with

> addition of characters when needed as Jason did) are the best

> approach?

And wrote:

I understand the desire to keep

the murkiness from many Chinese terms intact, but the Chinese readers

have

the advantage of reading the commentary as they go along. Just

presenting a

passage from the neijing with no commentary or clarity of terms (via

transparency), and expect the reader to consult the PD and gain

insight into

the passage is a little far-fetched. Getting to the Chinese term for

them

grants them nothing more than a false sense of security. They will

have some

idea what 'mind' means and miss the boat. I guess the whole business is

murky all around...

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

September 29, 2005

>

> On Behalf Of

> Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:38 PM

>

> Re: zhi

>

> Alon, Jason,

> I brought up this point in the past, but I think that perhaps we

> need to be clear about the role of dictionaries and glossaries in any

> technical subject, including medicine. For mainstream CM material,

> i.e. textbooks, patterns, technical terms, the Practical Dictionary

> covers a large percentage of what is necessary. And, what is

> necessary is to have reliable English term equivalents. However, for

> more specialized subjects, such as the Mai Jing, Shang Han Lun, Wen

> Bing Xue, and classical literature in general, specialized glossaries

> may be necessary. Texts on this subject can supply it within the

> same pages, or in the case of a huge project such as Paul Unschuld's

> 'Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen', separate glossaries and concordances will

> be developed.

Although I agree, there is one point you may be overlooking. Within

mainstream textbooks (modern PRC) there are mounds of classical quotes (i.e.

from neijing etc.) So, one DOES see things like 'the essence houses the

zhi' in modern texts which are straight from the neijing. Therefore these

issues are not just for classical texts, because these stock phrases

permeate everywhere (Just like Jimi Hendrix licks permeate modern rock).

Almost every Chinese article I have read quotes classical sources. People

love it. Therefore simplifying things and assuming that everyone is talking

about the same thing can be one slippery slope. I guarantee you can look in

a basic TCM PRC theory book and find zhi in reference to something from the

neijing. But I agree the PD covers the majority of uses, no one denies

this. But as we have just seen this can lead to a false sense of security

in knowing what is actually is being said. One must be careful on either

front.

-

September 29, 2005

Nigel and Feng Ye are working as it turns out on an English

version of the 'Jin Gui Yao Lue', and what I've seen of the text has

substantial commentary, footnoting and terminology explained

>>>>>

That is good news

Oakland, CA 94609

September 29, 2005

I don't think it is fair to draw the conclusions you've made

here, Alon, as only someone who is highly literate in both Chinese

and English has the luxury of choosing which term that is chosen to

tag onto the Chinese original.

>>>>>>

I agree, i am not sure what you think is an unfair conclusion. I would certainly

like to see highly literate in chinese and english doing medical translations.

Oakland, CA 94609

September 29, 2005

On Sep 29, 2005, at 1:21 PM, wrote:

> Nigel and Feng Ye are working as it turns out on an English

> version of the 'Jin Gui Yao Lue', and what I've seen of the text has

> substantial commentary, footnoting and terminology explained

>

>>>>>>

> That is good news

>

Definitely. I hope that it features the same format as the Paradigm

Press' Shang Han Lun.

--

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

September 29, 2005

Definitely. I hope that it features the same format as the Paradigm

Press' Shang Han Lun.

>>>>

Me too. I like all the commentary to be available on the same page instead at

the end of a chapter

Oakland, CA 94609

September 29, 2005

On Sep 29, 2005, at 3:37 PM, wrote:

> Nigel and Feng Ye are working as it turns out on an English

> version of the 'Jin Gui Yao Lue', and what I've seen of the text has

> substantial commentary, footnoting and terminology explained

--

Any idea of how far along they are?

Rory

September 29, 2005

another year or two to go.. . they are busy with the WHO translation

standards review right now.

On Sep 29, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Rory Kerr wrote:

>> Nigel and Feng Ye are working as it turns out on an English

>> version of the 'Jin Gui Yao Lue', and what I've seen of the text has

>> substantial commentary, footnoting and terminology explained

>>

> --

> Any idea of how far along they are?

>

> Rory

>

September 29, 2005

While on the subject of zhi I was wondering if any CHA members had any comments

to make on this in reference to eyebrows and zhi.

I have noticed that when people age all their hair will go gray but their

eyebrows can still be the normal eg black colour.

We know that CM says kidneys if are weak it will turn hair gray.

A Chinese feng shui/soothsayer type in Sydney once told me thin eyes brows and

loss of eye brow hair means you are weak willed and easily taken advatange of.

Of course this is not a CM point of view.

Are there any CM references to eyebrows and what they refer to. [in western

medicine I know the thinning of the outside eyebrows means hypothyroid]

I was speculating that as we age, the physical signs of the kidenys decline eg

sex drive, weak back etc but the zhi willpower is the last aspect of the kidney

to decline.Thats why the eyebrows stay dark until very old.

Heiko Lade

M.H.Sc.(TCM)

Lecturer and clinic supervisor

Auckland College of Natural Medicine

Website: www.acnm.co.nz

September 29, 2005

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> I agree with your assessment, but the knife definitely cuts both ways.

> Tracing it back does not guarantee any definite clarity many times.

The central problem is that Chinese medicine isn't always definitively

clear. The end readers and students must come to grips with the lack

of clarity that fundamentally exists in Chinese medicine, and it is

not really doing anyone a service to make it seem more clear than it

really is. When it is clear, by all means, express it clearly. But

when it is not clear, writers should be careful not to project their

own take on the matter and present it as fact. Most people who really

understand CM know that it has logical holes and vaguely defined

notions in certain places, but we just come to terms with this reality

and don't try to bend it to fit a more nicely constructed worldview

according to modern precision and logic. I'm sure you have

encountered this and agree.

But when the meaning is clear by a given context, everyone would

advocate a more clear English expression and no one would stick to

standard terms when a more clear approach can be safely used.

Eric

September 29, 2005

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote: