The Common Man

[lindsay]

Recently a lot of good discussion has taken place in that mother of all strings called The Difference (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2540.html?1102446860) concerning various types of people often mentioned in the Yi - junzi, daren, xiaoren, etc. It seems like a good idea to put some of this discussion in a separate string for future reference and additional comment. I am going to repost some of the discussion as best I can to establish a baseline for this topic. I edited out a bunch of bickering and other stuff, but if anyone thinks I've missed something important, please feel free to repost.


By Candid (Candid) on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 11:46 pm:

Superior Man. What a loaded word. I'm not an authenticator of ancient Chinese anything, but I'm certain that word isn't intended at it's often interpreted today. High and low, yes. High and low are measurable on about any level of thought. ?This serves me better than that.? Yes. Some things are more helpful to living happily.

But to be fair, if it is someone's nature during a particular part of their life to strive for perfection, it is helpful to hold to a hierarchy. It provides a measuring stick to record their progress.

I personally believe that at some point the stick is no longer useful, because the manner of growth is not linearly divided. To even try and measure defeats the entire premise of liberation.

By Bradford (Bradford) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 01:58 am:

I don't know how many times this has to be said,
but nobody seems to be capable of hearing it:

The term Superior Man does not occur in the Yijing.
This is just a really Stupid translation of Junzi.
Jun means Noble. Zi means Young Person or Child,
and an endearment like the Japanese suffix -San.
Eventually, but centuries later in Kongzi's time, it meant Sir.
The word for Superior is Shang. Common is Xiao.
Inferior is Fei. Man is Ren.

By Candid (Candid) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 02:32 am:

Thanks, Brad. It just sounds better coming from you.

By Bradford (Bradford) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 03:15 am:

Maybe a whole chorus will get through.

And I'm not at all opposed to the concept of superior people. We desperately need humans evolving much further, into something vastly superior to us.
And as a philosphy major, my favorite of all was Nietzsche, so I devoured everything he wrote on the Ubermensch at least twice.
But if the authors of the Yi had meant to say Superior Man, they would have written Shang Ren, not Junzi.
In the Da Xiang especially, where the term is most often used, the words are directed to the impressionable "Young Nobles" consulting the Yi for its ethical insruction (didn't say moral).
The Junzi was someone with great potential to do good in the world, given the capability to heed good advice.

By Martin (Martin) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 06:49 am:

Ah yes, Junzi - noble child, young noble. That sounds much better.

By Bradford (Bradford) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 06:55 am:

And best of all it gives the young feller lots of room to grow.

By Heylise (Heylise) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 10:10 am:

There are two terms in the Yi, on is the Junzi, the noble one. Brad is right about zi meaning young, but I remember a TV series, 'Are you being served', in a warehouse called The Grace Brothers. Now and then young mister Grace came in, looking like a tiny brittle ages old fossil, but he was 'young mister Grace', until the end of his days.
I think the zi has a similar meaning. The chief or emperor, or the father of the family, or the leader of the army, has a son who continues his leadership, a heir. This son has the responsibility to continue in the spirit of the father, as good, and possibly even better. He has to keep the inheritance intact or expand it, and to look after all involved. He cannot follow his own pleasures, he has a higher duty. So zi has most of all its meaning of seed, son, offspring.
zi n. son; child; offspring, (hist.) master (title of respect), person, seed, egg, viscount, copper coin; copper, first of the 12 Earthly Branches, cartridge, female dragonfly, adj. young; tender; small, m. (for bundle/hank/etc.) pr. (wr.) you

Then there is the Da Ren, the big man. Superior, great, many different translations, but da is simply big. So he can just as well be your 6 foot neighbor, and the Yi advises you to see him, when the other neighbor threatens to beat you up. He is the one who is good at something, but that can be very different things. Wise, strong, clever, dexterous. Big does not necessarily mean big size, when you lost your key and you need someone who can climb in through the toilet window, then your 'daren' might be your small agile child. And in order to solve a problem, or summon your courage, or conquer your selfishness, your DaRen has his seat in your own head, certainly when there is nobody around who can help you.


ShiJing 189, verse 7
The chief diviner will divine them.
The bears and grisly bears,
Are the auspicious intimations of sons.
The cobras and [other] serpents,
Are the auspicious intimations of daughters.

Here DaRen is translated as 'chief diviner'.

In the Yi the Junzi is the one who works on himself. He examines himself, he changes like a leopard, he has determination, he walks in the rain. The Da Ren does not change or anything else, he just is Da Ren. You have to find him.

LiSe

By Heylise (Heylise) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 11:42 am:

In hex.36.5: ***i, prince Ji. When he had to hide his brightness he was already a venerable old gentleman, one of the advisors of the emperor.

LiSe

By Candid (Candid) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 11:58 am:

LiSe, this is a really interesting view, in that you present a distinction between that which is measurable/comparable (Da Ren) and that which is always changing (Junzi). It seems the Junzi would use the Da Ren as a means to grow, express, protect or actualize, much as a man would use a ladder to change a light bulb, or a weapon to defend.

By Lindsay (Lindsay) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 02:08 pm:

Yes, this is very helpful. While we have our experts looking in -- Brad and LiSe -- I wonder if they would care to comment on Xiao Ren, "little man". Sometimes it is translated as simply the "common" or "ordinary" person, but other times translators indicate it refers to "petty" or "mean" or generally rude, ignorant, and stupid people. Not to contradict LiSe, of course, but I think there may be a value judgment in the Yi between the Da or "big" man and the Xiao or "small" man. It is not impossible that - from the viewpoint of the Yi's authors - common or ordinary people were slightly contemptible. It is not difficult to find elsewhere in the Yi assumptions based on the hierarchy of class. So while the junzi was doubtless a noble fellow, he got that way by being born to the right parents in the right family. I'm not at all sure the Yi is a proletarian document, comrades! What do you think?

By Lindsay (Lindsay) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 02:17 pm:

Yes, here it is in Chapter 10 in the lost commentary of Linzi: "One daren is worth twelve xiaoren, but a junzi is way better than a whole flock of darens."

By Sparhawk (Sparhawk) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 03:15 pm:

Quote:

"One daren is worth twelve xiaoren, but a junzi is way better than a whole flock of darens."


Very funny, Lindsay.

I like LiSe's interpretation of Junzi. It speaks of learning, legacy and passing the torch to the next worthy disciple.

In any case, IMHO, we are running around in circles here, trying to figure out the intention of the original writers of the Yi text. We are not only trying to translate Chinese to English, we trying to alphabetize imagery. Why are there so many art critics with so many different takes on any given art piece, specially when the artist is long gone to ask about his inspiration?? Sometimes, even if the artist is still alive it is difficult and irritating for him to explain himself something that should be obvious for somebody with a pair of eyes and brain in between. I'm sure LiSe knows a bit about what I'm saying . The point is, something very important will be lost in the translation... The solution that works for me is to see the Yi as art and keep intuitively abstracting those concepts. Mere reasoning does not work for me. It must feel right within the context of a question posed to the Yi. But, that's me, of course...

Luis

By Lindsay (Lindsay) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 04:22 pm:

Sorry, Luis, but I'm not asking anyone to fly in the thin air of abstract reason here. God forbid we should use our neocortexes! What I am suggesting is a little historical contextualization. LiSe seems to be very big on this with her etymological speculations, but it might be useful to review the history of Zhou society before getting too fuzzy-wuzzy about the ethical nobility of the junzi.


By Bradford (Bradford) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 05:32 pm:

Hey Lindsay-
Before we get into this, would you mind terribly reposting the start of this topic (12-7, "yes, this s very helpful...) on its own thread? Maybe "The Common Man"
I think it's one of the most important topics that's been opened in a while and it deserves its own thread for future reference. Meanwhile I'll be jotting some abstract reasoning down.

[lindsay]

Now we await Bradford's jottings!

[bradford_h]

Intro, from a footnote to Hex 12
* 12.0 The inferior person (fei ren) is not the same as the common or average person (xiao ren), although the Tuan Zhuan and Xiao Xiang fail to make this distinction. The latter term is value neutral, the former is value negative. Although the net effect of an excess of commonness is still
Pi, or entropy, this is attributable more to simple ignorance and ethical infirmity (bu gang) than to evil, arrogant ignorance and moral depravity. The inferior may be seen as entropy's vanguard. There is a proper place in the world for the common person, no proper place for the inferior person.

Theme One:
The Yi never has been a proponent of democracy and I think it would be a big mistake to reinterpret it as such. It speaks of a stratified society as the way things are. It does, however, take the world's first seps in moving (at least in theory) from monarchy/aristocracy towards Meritocracy, where you rise in status and power according to your worth as a person, what Jefferson called Natural Aristocracy. In many places the Yi asserts this (e.g. being true is as good as impressive, or being true is as good as dignified). Meritocracy, with its full complement of equal rights and opportunities (to go with unequal outcomes) wouldn't be fully implemented until the Exam System of the Early Han. But the seeds for it are planted throughout the Yi, where true nobility begins to be seen as more than the status and wealth that you're born with.
The search for alternatives to democracy (or at least to malignant majoritarianism) is timely, as roughly 48% of American voters are finally beginning to ask whether the majority isn't an absolute f****** idiot. The average American voter believes that the Bible was written by God Himself, instead of a neurotic mid-Eastern tribesman, and does not know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year. Exactly half of the people are below average. Maybe the Yi will suggest some solutions in the millenia to come.

Theme Two:
Xiao Ren (little, common, ordinary man) isn't really intended to be a value negative term (petty, inferior, mean man) in the Zhouyi. Most of this creeps in in the Wings, but some of it debuts in the Zhouyi. The Zhouyi uses Fei Ren (not, bad, inferior or anti- man) for those people the world would be better off without. The Xiao Ren have an important place in society as the base of the mountain, without which the peak would not exist. They also make up the militia. The Nobility has a vital obligation to keep them happy and healthy (noblesse oblige). Sometimes, however, the weight of their social inertia or the darkness of common ignorance provides a place for evil or inferiority to fluorish. Here even the Zhouyi gets peevish towards the Xiao Ren and calls for getting some distance away or above all the smallness (e.g. Gua 12). And of course the Xioa Ren love their gossip. In several places we are told to just dismiss this.

Theme Three:
Part of the mixup comes from dividing the world into different types of dichotomies and then mixing up the types in the making of analogies. For exmple: Us is to them as good is to evil.
Man is to Woman as superior is to inferior.
White is to black as self is to other.
Superior is to inferior as noble is to common.
The last two dichotomies actually refer to things of disproportionate size.
The other is not equal to myself. It includes a hundred billion galaxies as well as some of you.
Similarly, the nobles are on a vastly smaller scale than the commoners.
This got to be a bigger perceptual problem once the Yi started working with Yin and Yang, many centuries after the Yi was first written.

[lindsay]

Brad, thank you very much. Before I go on, I just want to reassure the forum there are only thirteen people in the world who care about this topic. Four of them are graduate students at major universities, three of them are certifiably insane, and most of the rest come from my hometown ? except for Brad, of course. So if this topic bores you silly, that?s probably a healthy sign.

OK, Brad, they?re gone ? now we can get down to work. Everything I have to say is in the nature of carping and nitpicking. I don?t expect to change your mind, but I?ll express my opinions anyway.

First of all, while I have no real problem with your first paragraph, I find ?entropy? a strange translation for the hex tag of Hexagram 12. ?Entropy? is the absence of energy, and recalls the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics in physics: ?Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered.? This is the law that explains why hot pans eventually cool down, why rolling objects always come to rest, maybe even why people eventually die. They run out of energy ? or rather, their energy disperses. A hundred years ago scientists used to issue dire warnings that the universe was running down, like an unwound watch, and eventually everything would come to a halt. Entropy.

This is not at all my image of Hexagram 12, which shows a condition of stalemate between two opposing, but equal forces. Normally, the forces of good and progress would triumph as a matter of course ? after all, good is better than bad, right? ? but in Hex 12, they have met their match. They are countered at every step by the forces of bad and regression. Two equal forces in deadlock. There?s plenty of energy being expended on both sides, but the good is not strong enough to triumph. In the language of physics, this is not a state of entropy, but of equilibrium. Standstill. Stalemate.

Theme One: Who would ever interpret the Yi as tract for democracy? Come, come, Brad. I also think your meritocracy argument is a bit of a stretch. China was never a meritocracy, even with the examination system. The examinations only allowed you to put your foot on the first rung of power, sort of like a diploma from the Ivy League or Oxbridge. After that, believe me, merit was only one factor in promotion. Besides, no emperor was chosen for merit, was he? China was not Plato?s Republic.

In Zhou China, as everywhere else in the world, ?noble? meant ?noble by birth.? In extraordinary circumstances, the king could ?establish feudatories,? that is, create nobles, but otherwise nobles were born, not made. Family connections were everything. Hex 37 is a bit of a ho-hum hexagram these days, but it was utterly crucial in ancient China, possibly even the most important hexagram from a practical perspective.

The only way to control a hereditary ruling class was to educate them along enlightened principles. This is exactly the intent of the Daxiang, and if you recall, it was also the whole basis for the career of Confucius, who hoped only to teach some prince to be a humane ruler. He failed. For every Confucius, there were ten Sunzi-types with their realpolitik.

Theme Two. I don?t think noblesse oblige was a very important factor in Zhou China. In real economic terms, there were not necessarily many degrees of separation between the nobles and the common people. But the common people were peasants. They didn?t just fight for the nobles, they fed them! All real wealth was measured in land, productive land that generated food to support the non-productive members of society. The more food, the more men and wealth a lord could dispose of. So a lord had a very vital link to the commoners. They made him possible; he knew it and planned to keep it that way. If you read Laozi, one recommended strategy for control was to keep the people in the dark. Feed their bellies and keep them ignorant.

Theme Three. This is very good in that it shows the true weakness in correlative thinking. In the end, all analogies are false. All images, metaphors, and symbols are liars. This is because every single thing is only uniquely itself in the end. It is not ?like? anything else. At a fairly non-granular level, such devices can be very suggestive and useful, but when you push them too far, they create far more problems than they solve. Exactly as you said.

It might be worth thinking about the nature of ?merit.? By what standard are the common people deficient to rule themselves? I do not say democracy is perfect, but I question all political forms suggested in its place. I worked for years and years in two-fisted big corporate America, a most undemocratic meritocracy if there ever was one, and I saw the type of person who rises to the top on the basis of ?merit? ? and Brad, I?d rather live in the most disorganized, chaotic, inefficient regime based on democratic principles. Nobody talks about the ?tyranny of the majority? on the day before elections, and only the losers bring it up on the day after.

[bradford_h]

Hi Lindsay-
Just passng on a footnote on the name of Gua 12:

* 12.0 Pi is often translated ?obstruction?, which misses the point entirely. Here
the two forces are going their own separate ways: the problem is that they are not
interfering with each other.

I don't take Entropy to mean the absence of energy, but that, without input, systems dissipate, lose coherence and order, become random and homogeneous. The energy is still there, it just cannot be put to work. Socially too, it's the deterioration of order, but more into apathy than anarchy.

[bradford_h]

Hi Lindsay-
There's something important missing in this statement:
"In Zhou China, as everywhere else in the world, ?noble? meant ?noble by birth.? In extraordinary circumstances, the king could ?establish feudatories,? that is, create nobles, but otherwise nobles were born, not made. Family connections were everything."

I tried to deal with this carefully in my Intro and History: The Zhouyi was not written by Early Zhou China. Nor was it written by the culture of Early Zhou China. It was written by a handpicked group of radicals and visionaries from a subculture of Wizards and Wu, at a particular moment in history where a lot of political ideas were getting reinvented. We saw an era like this a couple of centuries back and things got changed.

Ancient Greece did not have much to do with atomic and molecular theory, but Democritus still put out the ideas. Old Rome knew nothing of Darwin, but Lucretios wrote about life creating new species which were then thinned by natural selection. The 17th century had no radio and television but Bacon described them in The New Atlantis. Some members of a culture get a few centuries ahead of their times, especially when their job is looking into the future. You cannot just lump the authors in with the Zhou society at large. The shamans of a society don't live there.

[candid]

What practical application might we draw from fei ren and xiao ren as it relates to accurately interpreting the I Ching, today?

[heylise]

Bradford: ?It speaks of a stratified society as the way things are. It does, however, take the world's first steps in moving (at least in theory) from monarchy/aristocracy towards Meritocracy, where you rise in status and power according to your worth as a person?

In every society there are people who think along the view of meritocracy. In an aristocracy or monarchy they have little influence on the government, but in many other places meritocracy lives. There are good farmers and bad farmers, good shoemakers and bad shoemakers, good thinkers and bad ones. There exists no time in which one of the two, merito or aristo, lives, and the other one is totally dead.
The Yi has been made by diviners who had to advise the emperor. He has enough people who tell him what he likes to hear, but they cannot advise him, so he needs the one who can warn him. If he has any wits, then he appreciates the ?meritocratic? evaluation of a situation. It can make the difference between winning or losing a battle, or a rich or poor hunt.
So I don?t think the Yi has much to do with the prevailing politics or so, at least in this regard, but with common sense and profit.
The images, which are used, are a different matter. They can very well reflect the situation of the time. Life depended most of all on the farmers, and their ability to feed everyone. So in many places in the Yi we find images of farming. Same goes for hunting, fertility of women and land, rituals, possessions. But they all served for finding the most profitable outcome, not especially for describing an existing situation. What use is there in descriptions, or in prescriptions which have only to do with hierarchy? They are information about how things are, not how they become.

Bradford: ?Nor was it written by the culture of Early Zhou China. It was written by a handpicked group of radicals and visionaries from a subculture of Wizards and Wu,?
Huh? And survived all those centuries? Had a big influence on the culture of a big country, and even we in the West can use it?
Bradford: ?The 17th century had no radio and television but Bacon described them in The New Atlantis. Some members of a culture get a few centuries ahead of their times, especially when their job is looking into the future. You cannot just lump the authors in with the Zhou society at large. The shamans of a society don't live there.?
We do not owe electricity to Bacon, but to the guys who discovered it. Maybe Bacon?s ideas helped them a hand, but he was not the one who turned it into reality. If the Yi had been a book, which had little to do with real life, it could not have this huge impact. Bacon is famous, but it is just a tiny percentage of the world who knows his name. How many people still know about his book in 4 centuries? Everyone will still use electricity though (unless other guys find something better).
The Yi must have been more than an idea, it must have been a very realistic and practical book since it came into being.

Bradford: ?There is a proper place in the world for the common person?
I like that, and in 12.2 it says ?small man auspicious?, so there he sure has a proper place. And that they were seen as ?slightly contemptible?, yes, I think that could very well be so. But Lindsay?s point completes it:
Lindsay: ?So a lord had a very vital link to the commoners. They made him possible; he knew it and planned to keep it that way.?
I agree totally, I think this is Yi-thinking. Practical, economical, realistic. Maybe interesting to know that YI means nowadays in the first place exchange, trade. It is part of innumerable names of trading companies. ?Book of trade?, hm. Sounds a bit like ?handbook for making a successful business/career/lovelife/whatever?.


Lindsay: ?I?d rather live in the most disorganized, chaotic, inefficient regime based on democratic principles.?
Try Holland, I?d love to see you here. I think it is inefficient enough: in general people have a good life here.

LiSe

[candid]

LiSe (or coyote), thanks for answering my question.

[sparhawk]

Brad said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

It was written by a handpicked group of radicals and visionaries from a subculture of Wizards and Wu, at a particular moment in history where a lot of political ideas were getting reinvented.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

You only forgot to mention "female" Wizards and Wu. That would have fitted with Mary Halpin's theories to a dot. Well, almost... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

The LiSe replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Huh? And survived all those centuries? Had a big influence on the culture of a big country, and even we in the West can use it?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? It is the use given to the object afterwards that imbues the creation with a lasting legacy. Any creation. Usefulness is the key. And that goes for people too. It is why we have history.

Luis

[bradford_h]

Hi Luis-
If I'm not mistaken, Mary's theories go back a few thousand years further. Mine are conservatively set in the Early Zhou but draw on some recent centuries of Shang tradition. Importantly, this was a time when language was developing quickly, words were bein coined and culture (Wen) was being tinkered with.
I do have some girls in my think tank though. Wu, like our word Witch, applied to both sexes.

[bradford_h]

Hi Candid-
"What practical application might we draw from fei ren and xiao ren as it relates to accurately interpreting the I Ching, today?"

Avoid the former, these people will stick a non-metaphorical knife into you. They belong in cages.
Nourish the latter. We are in this together. Don't try to get them to think for themselves though.

[sparhawk]

Yes, Mary goes waaay back in history... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Importantly, this was a time when language was developing quickly, words were bein coined and culture (Wen) was being tinkered with.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early Zhou you mean? If so I'm surprised at the statement. I believe the Shang had a very rich and elaborate (language wise) culture. Of course, it could only evolve from there and get better and better as time and dynasties piled up. That certainly applies to your statement. However, I don't believe the roots of the Yi are in Early Zhou. Perhaps the trunk, but not the roots.

On the other hand, what's being discussed is not the origins of the Yi but the concept of Xiao Ren as it relates to the Yi context. So, don't mind me.

On that regard, I think your Nietzsche is showing... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif In this day and age of rampant "individualism" such concepts as meritocracy are unpopular but I think I understand where are you getting at.

L

[candid]

Doesn't mind Brad's Nietzsche-iest approach at all. And am rather fond of individualism. Ok, I'll shut up now. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/paperbag.gif LOL

Brad, I've met a few that are as you've described. Look in their eyes and there seems to be no soul inside. But I've seen the same look in my youngest son's eyes during a time when he was a drug addict, but I continued loving on him anyway. Today he's got his soul and I have my son back. Wonder what would have happened if I'd have avoided him?

[bradford_h]

Hi Candid-

Good point. And the crucial third part of the prayer, for
"The wisdom to know the difference."
Even Angel and Spike found redemption after all those years as vampires.
Of course they had to get their souls back and save the world a lot.
But then, Jeffrey Dahmer's mom never gave up on him either.

The Fei Ren, as persona non grata, is maybe best applied to the ones we used to remove from our gene pools by evicting them from our hunter gatherer bands to fend for themelves against the big cats. And we would do this sparingly for the same reasom we learned to bury our dead, to keep the predators from developing a taste for us. In addition to our hopes for their redemption.
But it seems to be a family tradition that goes back a long ways.

[candid]

Brad,

I'm seeing a correlation here between Fei Ren and hex. 21, at least from your rendering of the meaning. Is this an incidental connection, or is there a more founded link?

And your point about Dahmer is well met.

[sparhawk]

Sigh... I miss Angel and Spike...

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

And we would do this sparingly for the same reasom we learned to bury our dead<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, a while back I wrote a little rant about death and cemeteries in my blog (almost abandoned but not defunct)

Old death and tiny cemeteries (http://www.sorocabana.net/archives/000042.html)

L

[bradford_h]

Candid-
Maybe 21.6. Not lots of hope of redemption there.
They are mentioned at 8.3 as the wrong crowd
and at 12.0 as not worth a young noble's loyalty.
You see them at work, but not named, at 38.3

[candid]

Brad,

I?m having a little trouble getting my head around such a large amount of attention given to what seems like such a small number of miscreants. Ok, perhaps they aren?t as small in number as I?d like to think. How prominent is the term Fei Ren in Yi? I?ve checked your section K and couldn?t find it mentioned.

Also, I nearly always first search out the characters of Yi within myself before suspecting them appearing outwardly. Fei Ren would be no exception. This would suggest that everyone has some Fei Ren in them. Do you agree with this introspective approach, especially in the instance of Fei Ren appearing?

[bradford_h]

Candid-

Crossed in the post I guess.
Instances are listed just above.

My own Inner Fei Ren is my evil twin Skippy.
He damn near wrecked my liver before I got him locked up.
He never got caught by the law though.

[candid]

Brad, understands. Thanks.