ChiDragon Posted August 31, 2012 FYI only... This is the definition of the modern standard: 知(zhi1): to know; knowing; knowledge 智(zhi4): wisdom; smart; tricky in a smart way; cleverness. In the chapters you looked at, was there a consistency (not asking about accuracy or validity, just consistency) in the context for 知 and 智 ? What I'm asking is, where 知 occurred, was the context regarding 'wisdom' - and where 智 occurred, was the context regarding knowledge? Thanks! If one follows the modern definition above, anything has to do with wisdom, intelligence and cleverness; then 智(zhi4) is the character to be used. Anyway, this is the basic rule. I will use this rule to check the consistency in the context for 知 and 智. Let's use this example again. 3 恒使民 無知、無欲也， Always let the people to have no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc). Note: no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) requires cleverness. Therefore, the above should read as follows: 3 恒使民 無智、無欲也， Always let the people to have no cleverness(無智) in cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 31, 2012 Based what has been said, it would be a more appropriate to translate it as: 3 恒使民 無知、無欲也， Always let the people to have no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc). 無知, here, means no knowledge of I think that this is important and should be talked about more at some point in the future in a thread of its own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 If one follows the modern definition above, anything has to do with wisdom, intelligence and cleverness; then 智(zhi4) is the character to be used. Anyway, this is the basic rule. I will use this rule to check the consistency in the context for 知 and 智. Let's use this example again. 3 恒使民 無知、無欲也， Always let the people to have no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc). Note: no knowledge(無知) of cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) requires cleverness. Therefore, the above should read as follows: 3 恒使民 無智、無欲也， Always let the people to have no cleverness(無智) in cunning(scheming, cheating...etc) No desire(無欲) to steal(rob, loot..etc). CD - why did you change the character?? To better fit your own idea?? The original DDJ uses 無知 why did you change 知 it to 智 ?? You might not agree with Wang's idea regarding Wu-wisdom (無知) , or that 知=wisdom and 智=knowledge, and that's fine, but if you cannot participate in this discussion with integrity, then continuing has no value. Please explain why you altered the original DDJ. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 31, 2012 CD - why did you change the character?? To better fit your own idea?? The original DDJ uses 無知 why did you change 知 it to 智 ?? You might not agree with Wang's idea regarding Wu-wisdom (無知) , or that 知=wisdom and 智=knowledge, and that's fine, but if you cannot participate in this discussion with integrity, then continuing has no value. Please explain why you altered the original DDJ. Thanks. Sorry, rene. It was not that I don't agree with Wang's idea regarding Wu-wisdom (無知) , or that 知=wisdom and 智=knowledge. Somehow, It was Wang had the definitions reversed. I don't know why he did not follow the modern Chinese standard. That is not fine for me to participate in this discussion with integrity. Yes you are right, then continuing has no value. Do you see the dilemma, here, when we talking about the terms....??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I'm surprised that you would change the original DDJ, CD, which you clearly did. Apologize to yourself. IF one agrees or disagrees with something, or IF one has made errors in interpretations, those kinds of things can be discussed and then ignored/corrected/sorted/whatever ... WHEN an original character in the DDJ is intentionally changed, I'm done. Peace out, CD. edit to add CD's posts. Sorry, rene. It was not that I don't agree with Wang's idea regarding Wu-wisdom (無知) , or that 知=wisdom and 智=knowledge. Somehow, It was Wang had the definitions reversed. I don't know why he did not follow the modern Chinese standard. That is not fine for me to participate in this discussion with integrity. Yes you are right, then continuing has no value. Do you see the dilemma, here, when we talking about the terms....??? Okay....it was understood that the both characters are interchangeable. I made the change was to illustrate that would be the correct format by following the modern Chinese standard for clarity. If one has to rewrite it, I definitely would make that change. Edited August 31, 2012 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 31, 2012 CD - why did you change the character?? To better fit your own idea?? The original DDJ uses 無知 why did you change 知 it to 智 ?? Okay....it was understood that the both characters are interchangeable. I made the change was to illustrate that would be the correct format by following the modern Chinese standard for clarity. If one has to rewrite it, I definitely would make that change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 31, 2012 rene... If you are not too upset, I would like to add this to your flavor... 18 1. 大道廢，有仁義。 2. 智慧出，有大偽。 3. 六親不和，有孝慈。 4. 國家昏亂，有忠臣。 In line 2 of Chapter 18 智慧 is proper term for wisdom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 @ rainbowvein - Kind words, thanks. (-: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 31, 2012 CD, I'm not upset at all! It's much better for me to discover your nature now before more energy was invested in a dialogue with you on this thread. (-: Dont you have a new student (yiming) to see to over in the Chinese forum? Nice that you're helping him translate the DDJ. Hopefully you'll not alter the original over there. Good luck! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) reen... Do you know how many times the DDJ has been altered in the past two thousand years history....??? I would not consider this is a waste of energy to iron out some reconcilable differences. It not, it is okay too. I can see that we all have our own sources. I agree that the first source of ours is hard to let go as a standard. I do realize that we do have differences in thinking, culture, language, and most of all is our personality. Personality is the hardest thing to overcome in any matter. Normally, that was the area where we ended up having the argument comes to a halt. When personality strikes, there was nothing can move forward again but just hung in thin air. Edited August 31, 2012 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
