[TTC Study] Chapter 5 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Aaron]

As I see the "literal" translation of Tai Shi, the less and less I feel any kind of connection to the Tao Teh Ching. Not anything against Taishi, it's just my own feelings about the translation. It seems more inclined to be a document for the ruling class and less inclined towards the commoner. Since I am the latter, I have no need for the former.

 

Aaron

[dawei]

As I see the "literal" translation of Tai Shi, the less and less I feel any kind of connection to the Tao Teh Ching. Not anything against Taishi, it's just my own feelings about the translation. It seems more inclined to be a document for the ruling class and less inclined towards the commoner. Since I am the latter, I have no need for the former.

I understand the sentiment but there are a few problems with that.

1. The book was written somewhere inbetween 600 BC - 300 BC. What was the literacy rate? I have heard numbers like 5-10%... Even going back to Shang Dynasty period, who was actually doing the oracle bone writings and divination practices? Basically the court. Even in 1949 the literacy was only put at 20%.

2. The common folks had no knowledge about military, court, and societal governing affairs yet there are lot of references throughout.

3. If you look at the commentaries written, most all of them comment about the ruler much more than you ever see as translations which are just based on characters. A good example is what you see in Wagner's translation; he translated the WB based on WB's notes. So if the line conveys a person was in mind, he inserts "ruler" since WB said in his notes this concerned the ruler. But if one just looks at the line itself, you might not see it that way.

4. This comes out of the Warring State Period; operative word is "War". The Sage-Kings are but a memory; Zhou, for what it might of represented for some was also now a lost memory. Legend says LZ left because he saw the walls come tumbling down.

 

But commentaries can vary in what they see. Some focus more religiously (Xiang'er), some more spiritually/energy (Heshang Gong) and some more metaphysically (Wang Bi). I mentioned early how 4 different commentators apparently see the "straw dogs" differently; so it's not like they all agree on everything.

 

Anyways, I lean left of center that it's mostly for rulers... while the word "Sage" is used a lot, we have to also remember that "Sage-King" is not unfounded as one meaning. But I know that the modern desire concerning the reading of older texts is usually; what is there in here for me as personal growth or application.

 

 

-- edited to add #4 above which I forget to mention as an obvious point.

Edited December 6, 2010 by dawei

[rene]

 

I think that 'De' is the most commonly accepted character. It was used by Confucius too.

 

...

 

dawei, thanks for your detailed response (-: I realized after posting my questions that I should have added 'not exclusively to the TTC' when asking about character availability for LZ to use... but I think you gleaned what I wanted as your reply is not limited to that which is only found in the book.

 

So, unless I learn otherwise, if I'm understanding you correctly, the answers to my original questions are...

 

Is there a chinese character for Virtue? (the societal moralistic kind of virtue) Yes, kinda.

 

Is it a different character than the one used for De? No, kinda.

 

If it's the same character, is this (yet another) case of LZ choosing one (commonly used) character to point at something else? (like he did with Dao=path/method/way and Dao=Great Dao) Who the fk knows, kinda.

 

[majc]

BAI XING: I mentioned in my opening post concerning this word. Throughout ancient history, only those in [a position of] power really had the right to a surname; common people were allowed them later. Therefore it divided how people translate it as 'common people' or 'nobility'. Certainly the modern use is as common people. Some opt out and use something very literal like the 100 Surnames or 100 Families.

Interesting.

 

Do you see any way that "the hundred families/given names for the elevated" is not intended literally, but as imagery? As a metaphor to indicate a type of relationship, similar to Mother, ancestor etc. used throughout the text?

 

For a modern example of exactly the same thing: anyone familiar with programming? Objects and classes. A class = a specification/categorization of a set - i.e. family - of objects. These classes are, in a way, "raised" or "elevated" just as the suggested 'nobility' is, in a way, "raised" or "elevated".

 

(It's pretty easy to see how these meanings would become crossed by those searching for a historical context in which Lao Tzu can be framed).

 

So you've got the ten thousand things, and the hundred families which "sit on top" of that.

 

Specifications, categorizations, classifications... somethings and nothings, highs and lows... John Does and Jane Smiths... smart people and dumb people, good people and bad people... important things and unimportant things, useful things and useless things... solids and spaces. Could this be the same sort of thing as in chapter 2 with a different focus? Applying not just to descriptions (ch. 2), not just to people, but universally to all classes?

 

If this is right, then the creative power of space follows naturally as a deliberately (and humourously) overstated example to illustrate the point (something both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu seem fond of). This would explain the exclamation involved in his making the comparison too, almost like a standup comedian. So - he makes the point by reversing our instinctive focus on solid over space...

 

How space is like bellows!

It's empty, and that's its power.

The more you move it, the more it produces.

 

Instead of overlooking the emptiness of space, he's seeing it as a powerful attribute - even comparing it to the power of the emptiness in bellows! (haha lol old man - you jest.. you jest.. etc.)

 

This all fits with chapter 11's power of the hole which moves the cart. And it would also explain the "futility of words in conveying the point" (at the end of the chapter) because words are classifiers. Words, by definition, automatically enter the reader into a domain of classification, so no amount of words could ever give a balanced view.

[dawei]

dawei, thanks for your detailed response (-: I realized after posting my questions that I should have added 'not exclusively to the TTC' when asking about character availability for LZ to use... but I think you gleaned what I wanted as your reply is not limited to that which is only found in the book.

 

So, unless I learn otherwise, if I'm understanding you correctly, the answers to my original questions are...

 

Is there a chinese character for Virtue? (the societal moralistic kind of virtue) Yes, kinda.

 

Is it a different character than the one used for De? No, kinda.

 

If it's the same character, is this (yet another) case of LZ choosing one (commonly used) character to point at something else? (like he did with Dao=path/method/way and Dao=Great Dao) Who the fk knows, kinda.

 

yea... kinda of correct

 

I forget to mention that the modern day use also has the compound 'Dao De'... kind of ironic that the book which sought to untangle itself from societal moralistic kind of virtue ended up with it's own themes combined in a title and used for morality. No good deed goes unpunished

 

But as you know, there are times when meaning drives the translation and so someone might of used something other than 'De' but the meaning is really akin to a kind of virtue. It is similar to the word 'Wei' which means 'action' but in context there are so many actions possible that there is usually another word which fits better than just the simple 'action'.

 

But I think it is probably more rare in the LZ to translate other words to Virtue since 'De' has such an honored place. but if translating a Confucian text, there are various possible words which I can see get translated as 'virtue'; At a minimum, these would include the 'six virtues', which he called 'liu shan' (六言-technically 'six words', so even here 'words' in context is translated by 'virtue'). The rendering below is somewhat typical in the use of "love" but that word is not love it is the word for 'good' (hao)... so it goes:

 

The Analects:

Confucius said: Yu, have you heard the six virtues and the six distortions?

Yu answered that he hadn't.

Confucius said: Then stay a moment, and I will tell you.

If you love humaneness, but don't love learning, then you will be led astray by foolishness.

If you love wisdom, but don't love learning, then you will be led astray by fruitless speculation.

If you love sincerity, but don't love learning, then you will be led astray by harmful candor.

If you love justice, but don't love learning, you will be led astray by violent severity.

If you love boldness, but don't love learning, you will be led astray by your own lack of control.

If you love persistence, but don't love learning, you will led astray by your own adamancy.

[dawei]

Do you see any way that "the hundred families/given names for the elevated" is not intended literally, but as imagery? As a metaphor to indicate a type of relationship, similar to Mother, ancestor etc. used throughout the text?

With 'Wan Wu' as the 10,000 things we associate that to the physical, manifested world. I don't think that has as much debate to it. It's hard to ignore that 'Bai Xing' has a historical use among those in power since it serves many purposes (tracking families, time, ancestors to worship, etc). But in both cases, they are using numerology to suggest a many aspect.

 

I think what your saying is 'nobility' would be a class [categorization] of the object called 'family'?

 

Are you also suggesting the 'hundred families' as a class of the object 'ten thousand things'?

 

if I was lucky to follow you to here, I'm not sure if your now suggesting 'space' as a class? Of what object?

 

 

How space is like bellows!

It's empty, and that's its power.

The more you move it, the more it produces.

 

Instead of overlooking the emptiness of space, he's seeing it as a powerful attribute - even comparing it to the power of the emptiness in bellows! (haha lol old man - you jest.. you jest.. etc.)

 

This all fits with chapter 11's power of the hole which moves the cart. And it would also explain the "futility of words in conveying the point" (at the end of the chapter) because words are classifiers. Words, by definition, automatically enter the reader into a domain of classification, so no amount of words could ever give a balanced view.

I definitely agree that one cannot overlook the emptiness; that is supposed to be one focus, that it never is truly empty, always generating; it cannot exhaust its strength (or power to produce/generate). And definitely ties to the chapter before and after which may explain why these three are together, and also to chapter 11.

 

There is also some aspect of, to borrow from Twinner, non-interference or letting things operate according to their own nature, by staying empty (ie: abide in your own nature); This seems to be 'bu ren', space, bellows, and few words/edicts. These permit all things to abide in their own nature.

 

I now find an interesting similar word use to the Six Virtues [liu shan] of Confucius and the Many words [duo shan] of the ending. Some have translated this like 'too many government decrees'... but maybe it also means 'too many virtues'... I'll have to get Rene's permission to use that for virtue

Edited December 7, 2010 by dawei

[rene]

I'll have to get Rene's permission to use that for virtue

 

LOLOL you dont need rene's permission for anything. When the name was changed from The Laozi to the TaoTeChing by Religious Taoists to make its inclusion more palatable, well, rene wandered off at that point from any vested interest, heheh.

 

Thanks for your second post; most informative! I love learning.

 

warm regards

[Procurator]

I'm a bit confused and don't read Chinese. Are the two readings of REN justified by the text? i.e 'kernel' and 'humane'. If not why the difference?

 

chinese is omophonic, i . e. many words - same sound. To make sense of it they resort to omophonic etymology e. g. "why ghosts are called GUI 鬼？Because they come back 归 GUI from dead"

 

Humane- ness is represented by a character for heart, the core (heart) of the human being, therefore the same charecters also means a core, a kernel.

 

The brilliance of this passage is in its story arc:

 

1.Heaven and Earth are empty (no kernel REN ); the ruler is heartless (no humane-ness REN), the bellows are empty.

 

2.All 3 work in miraculous ways and preserve themselves unendingly due to their emptyness

 

3. therefore you need to imitate them, cut out verbality to become empty like a centre (which in chinese has a meaning of an empty middle)

 

Despite the passage even being called "the use of emptyness" this story arc is completely lost on on modern reader, translator.

 

 

Why is it 'nobility' and not 'people' who are straw dogs?

the nobility is closest to ruler's person, they protect him with their lives in time of war, serve him in peace, and follow him in afterlife at his departure.

Edited December 7, 2010 by TianShi

[Procurator]

And you've got the way things are all wrapped up, right?

 

u betcha!

 

 

Ok I believe you. In no uncertain terms then - forget the exact Chinese characters in Laozi's 2500 year old expression - please explain in plain English, pure and simple, the practical advice you believe this chapter is giving the reader.

i hope my above post answers your esteemed request

[rene]

(from another thread, copied to here, as requested instructed)

 

I'm certain that High De, has nothing to do with virtue, morality, or ethics, <snip>

So for me, the more I think of it, Virtue isn't necessarily a good descriptor for it.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Using "High virtue and low virtue" is almost as encumbered as "Captial V Virtue and Lower Case v virtue".

 

Hey, here's an idea -

 

Why don't we just use the word "De" when we're talking about De?

 

Leave it "untranslated". That way, we can use the word 'Virtue' to refer to the social/moral concept. Whenever you see the word 'virtue' in a translation, just switch it to 'de' in your head.

Edited December 7, 2010 by rene

[Procurator]

As I see the "literal" translation of Tai Shi, the less and less I feel any kind of connection to the Tao Teh Ching.

good for u, letting go is a hallmark of maturity. DDJ as any cultivation is not for everyone. few ppl can handle this truth.

[Aaron]

good for u, letting go is a hallmark of maturity. DDJ as any cultivation is not for everyone. few ppl can handle this truth.

 

Tianshi,

 

I was being sarcastic... my point is that you are translating the Tao Teh Ching to co-opt your own reality and beliefs (and hence your own absolute truth). Nothing wrong with that, I just think you're way off base, whether you speak Chinese or not. I am much more inclined to follow Henricks or Wu's translations, not only because they have extensively studied the language, but also put a great deal of time and effort into researching the characters and their actual meanings. The fact that their interpretations seem to appeal to people on a deeper level also lends me to believe they've gotten something right.

 

This debate about whether it was meant for the ruler or the commoner is fine and good, but in the end it doesn't matter. A ruler is no better than a commoner and we all rule small kingdoms. If we can't apply those things to our own lives, then we're missing out on the importance of the message.

 

As Dawei pointed out the Tao Teh Ching was written during a time of turmoil and change. The author of the Tao Teh Ching had a specific reason for addressing much of this to the ruler, but that doesn't change the fact that most people can feel a certain degree of reason within it, that they can apply to their own lives. You can continue to debate the correct translation, or actually give us your own feelings about what the passages mean, it's entirely up to you, but the former seems to only appeal to a limited few members here, the latter could possibly help someone to understand what's being said.

 

Aaron

Edited December 7, 2010 by Twinner

[Procurator]

. I am much more inclined to follow Henricks or Wu's translations, not only because they have extensively studied the language, but also put a great deal of time and effort into researching the characters and their actual meanings. The fact that their interpretations seem to appeal to people on a deeper level also lends me to believe they've gotten something right.

 

yeah, same old..i feel..i incline..i believe...the people like it. yeah the consumers would like it no question about it (yawn)

 

 

 

A ruler is no better than a commoner and we all rule small kingdoms.

heheheh:)) you would wish wou ldnt you?

[Aaron]

yeah, same old..i feel..i incline..i believe...the people like it. yeah the consumers would like it no question about it (yawn)

 

 

heheheh:)) you would wish wou ldnt you?

 

Hello Taishi,

 

I see a lot of hubris in your discussions, this idea that you know the truth and the rest of us are just woefully misinformed. I would recommend you look at the way you communicate with others, show a bit of respect for other people's ideas. If you continue to disagree, then you have the option of either disagreeing in silence, or to continue your not so subtle attempts to appear clever. However please keep in mind that it's not appropriate to place a "yawn" in response to someone's comments, nor is it appropriate to put a "LOL".

 

It's akin to saying "you bore me" and "you're ideas make me laugh", which are insulting.

 

Aaron

Edited December 7, 2010 by Twinner

[rene]

Tianshi,

... You can continue to debate the correct translation, or actually give us your own feelings about what the passages mean, it's entirely up to you, but the former seems to only appeal to a limited few members here, the latter could possibly help someone to understand what's being said.

 

TianShi, you can count me in as one of the 'limited few' whom your debate appeals to. I dont know whose ideas are right; but I know when the essence of what your and others' dueling-words are pointing at lines up with what resonates in me.

 

I've no problem with the rough edges of anyones' delivery ways. Sometimes breathing is easy; sometimes breathing is hard. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

warm regards

[majc]

Yeah sorry about that dawei, I was tired last night and my writing was a bit moronic.

 

 

With 'Wan Wu' as the 10,000 things we associate that to the physical, manifested world. I don't think that has as much debate to it.

Definitely, I wasn't debating that at all! 10,000 things just means, quite literally, "all objects".

 

 

It's hard to ignore that 'Bai Xing' has a historical use among those in power since it serves many purposes (tracking families, time, ancestors to worship, etc). But in both cases, they are using numerology to suggest a many aspect.

Well of course that's its historical use among those in power. For those in positions of government, people are the contents of their domain.

 

But the contents of a domain could be anything. Like Aaron said, "ruling a kingdom" doesn't have to be about countries or even people. That's not to say that this view can't be applied to the totalitarian government of countries - it can... - but that's just one very narrow, obsessive route to take it.

 

 

I think what your saying is 'nobility' would be a class [categorization] of the object called 'family'?

 

Are you also suggesting the 'hundred families' as a class of the object 'ten thousand things'?

No, my fault sorry. The hundred families = the hundred classes.

A class could be any categorization/grouping/delineation of objects like "important things", "pointless things", "ugly things", "big things" - any line of distinction separating one or more objects from everything else.

 

 

if I was lucky to follow you to here, I'm not sure if your now suggesting 'space' as a class? Of what object?

There are lots of different solid things in the world and lots of different spaces. These spaces can also be considered "things", all of them potentially creative.

 

----

 

This is where I should've been much clearer though. I'm suggesting that the first two lines are a comparison between:

 

The way Nature works with the domain it "presides over" - the ten thousand things as they really are; "the territory".

 

and

 

The way the Master works with the domain he "presides over" - the hundred families: his simplified, delineated, categorized internal representation of the ten thousand things; his "map" of "the territory".

 

----

 

Nature does not prefer any particular arrangement of the ten thousand things. It invests no energy in judging any particular arrangement of the territory to be good or bad and is always letting every arrangement go, moving on from moment to moment as if each were as meaningless to it as a straw dog.

 

The Master does not prefer any particular arrangement of the hundred families delineations of the ten thousand things. He invests no energy in judging any particular map (arrangement of delineations) to be good or bad and is always letting every arrangement go, moving on from moment to moment as if each were as meaningless to him as a straw dog.

Edited December 7, 2010 by majc

[Marblehead]

Wanted to let y'all know that I am following this thread. I just have nothing of value to add at the moment.

[dawei]

I'm suggesting that the first two lines are a comparison between:

 

The way Nature works with the domain it "presides over" - the ten thousand things as they really are; "the territory".

 

and

 

The way the Master works with the domain he "presides over" - the hundred families: his simplified, delineated, categorized internal representation of the ten thousand things; his "map" of "the territory".

 

----

 

Nature does not prefer any particular arrangement of the ten thousand things. It invests no energy in judging any particular arrangement of the territory to be good or bad and is always letting every arrangement go, moving on from moment to moment as if each were as meaningless to it as a straw dog.

 

The Master does not prefer any particular arrangement of the hundred families delineations of the ten thousand things. He invests no energy in judging any particular map (arrangement of delineations) to be good or bad and is always letting every arrangement go, moving on from moment to moment as if each were as meaningless to him as a straw dog.

Thanks for clarifying. I think it is making some general classifications rather than holding some literal meaning at times. Maybe we can explore that as we move forward to see how that fleshes out. I see where your going with the 'domain' idea.

 

I have rarely given much thought to the straw dogs issue; always accepting it as the impartiality angle, etc. Now I am looking at it much deeper and question why LZ really uses it; meaning, I see the straw dogs are not so impartial after all (they have a specific use and function) and why appeal to a otherwise stupid ancient ceremonial ritual which only Confucians would get an appeal from. I stumbled upon Carus's translation (of 1913) and he turns this all around but it got me thinking more.

 

Anyways, thanks for sharing.

[majc]

Thanks for clarifying. I think it is making some general classifications rather than holding some literal meaning at times. Maybe we can explore that as we move forward to see how that fleshes out. I see where your going with the 'domain' idea.

 

I have rarely given much thought to the straw dogs issue; always accepting it as the impartiality angle, etc. Now I am looking at it much deeper and question why LZ really uses it; meaning, I see the straw dogs are not so impartial after all (they have a specific use and function) and why appeal to a otherwise stupid ancient ceremonial ritual which only Confucians would get an appeal from. I stumbled upon Carus's translation (of 1913) and he turns this all around but it got me thinking more.

 

Anyways, thanks for sharing.

There's always the (more than likely) chance that the meaning of straw dog in chinese culture, like all myths/traditions/rituals, changed over time and took on a life of its own. Ideas grow, especially as new people get their hands on them, and the unexplainable ceremonial stuff that doesn't really seem relevant to chapter 5 could have followed after (or even in parallel with) Lao Tzu's original, possibly very simplistic use.

 

Obviously I'm not claiming I know this is the case. I'm just saying I can see a clear way in which straw dog - meaning literally a dog made of straw, without any vague, special, somehow-meaningful ceremonial bullshit attached - makes perfect sense, both in this chapter and the broader context of the TTC.

 

As I think you implied, I find it very strange that the otherwise plainly spoken Lao Tzu supposedly veers off suddenly at the start of chapter 5 into such an esoteric example... it makes no sense to me why that would happen.

[rene]

...I'm just saying I can see a clear way in which straw dog - meaning literally a dog made of straw, without any vague, special, somehow-meaningful ceremonial bullshit attached - makes perfect sense, both in this chapter and the broader context of the TTC.

 

When I first read that line in Feng/English back in... '79? I thought it was talking about a child's toy, straw fashioned into a dog. Something to play with and when it got too tattered or outgrown - throw it away!

 

[majc]

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Procurator]

TianShi, you can count me in as one of the 'limited few' whom your debate appeals to.

thanks rene, it is my pleasure. i would be able to contribute at any point in the discussion when it turns to the original chinese for substantiation. without the original text its all just a lot of hot air.

 

but what can you do? ppl buy second hand or cheap imitations because that is all they can afford not because they like it. here, it is one better- they like it to boot.

[Procurator]

 

It's akin to saying "you bore me" and "you're ideas make me laugh".

 

Aaron

 

nothing gets past u, does it?)

 

 

? I would recommend you .... If you continue to disagree, then you have the option of either disagreeing in silence, or to continue your not so subtle attempts to appear clever. However please keep in mind that it's not appropriate

 

oh but u missed the third option. the one i use with folks who try telling me what to do..

 

say hi to ignore list

[Mal]

Well after 7 pages I'm just happy that Hu Xuezhi didn't use "straw dog" in his translation for Revealing the Tao Te Ching

[majc]

thanks rene, it is my pleasure. i would be able to contribute at any point in the discussion when it turns to the original chinese for substantiation. without the original text its all just a lot of hot air.

 

but what can you do? ppl buy second hand or cheap imitations because that is all they can afford not because they like it. here, it is one better- they like it to boot.

Ok fine. I got some time to explain now so let's hold you to your own rules then.

 

 

Now we can correctly understand the passage and translate it as it was meant - practical:

 

天地不仁，以萬物為芻狗；

聖人不仁，以百姓為芻狗。

天地之間，其猶橐籥乎？

虛而不屈，動而愈出。

多言數窮，不如守中。

Heaven and Earth do not have a kernel (REN) and use all things as straw dogs

The ruler is not humane (REN) and uses even nobility as straw dogs

Heaven and Earth space, is it not like bellows?

Empty but inexhaustible, cycles and evermore produces.

Rather than be exhausted by verbality, its better to guard your EMPTY centre.

 

So the passage ends with practical precept on emptiness within, while cyclicality within is left for another passage.

First of all, how do you justify the invention of a dual meaning for 仁? 'Not having a kernel' and 'not humane'. Two different meanings are not suggested by the text at all. Either nature is not humane, or the 'ruler' doesn't have a kernel. (And where exactly does 'ruler' come from anyway?)

 

Good start.....

 

And then 'Heaven and Earth use all things as straw dogs'? Could you try and force that to sound any more sinister? It's not sinister, it's neutral - 'use' would be 用 not 為.

 

This sentence actually reads: 天地 Heaven and Earth 不 do not 仁 prefer*. 以 As if 萬物 the 10,000 things 為 exist as 芻狗 straw dogs.

And the next line reads: 聖人 The wise man 不 does not 仁 prefer. 以 As if 百姓 the 100 [distinctions] 為 exist as 芻狗 straw dogs.

 

*this character is literally a human picking one over another.

 

You got this line right: 天地 Heaven and Earth 之 's 間 space. 其 This 猶 [is almost like] 橐籥 bellows! 乎

 

The bellows thing follows as an exaggerated illustration, by reversing one of the most common of the hundred distinctions we all make - between solids and spaces. Really, they are different aspects of one thing, (two poles of one magnet etc. whatever). Solids aren't powerful. Solid-space is powerful. Solids create spaces and spaces create solids. You can never have one without the other; they arise mutually - as soon as there is solid, there is space. See ch 2.

 

Inexhaustible / not exhaustible is wrong. And cycles is a fabrication. I don't care about your explanations to do with funerals and needing to believe in afterlives and eternities. That's religious bullshit. This is an observational commentary on The Way Things Are - of which religious ceremonies and the governing of nations make up a pathetically small part.

 

虛 Empty 而 but 不 not 屈 powerless. 動 Move it 而 and 愈 [more & more] 出 [it] produces.

 

You say your version contains practical advice? And yet you end on 'guard your empty center'... Even allowing for your translator-addition of the word empty, this weighs in at a solid 6 or 7 out of 10 on my supersonically-unclear-instruction-o-meter.

 

多 Many 言 words 數 add up to 窮 poorness [of understanding]. 不如 Better to 守 keep [it] 中 inside.

 

Or, in better English: "But words for this are useless. No amount of words here could present a balanced view."