Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
‘Below heaven is the mountain: Retreat.
A noble one keeps small people at a distance,
Not with hatred, but through respect.’
‘Loving retreat.
Noble one, good fortune.
Small people, blocked.’
‘Loving retreat.
Noble one, good fortune.
Small people, blocked.’
‘Small people use vigour,
Noble one uses a net.
Constancy: danger.
The ram butts a hedge,
Entangles his horns.’
‘Wild geese gradually progress to the trees.
Maybe find a flat branch.
No mistake.’
‘Marrying maiden waiting,
Turns it round and marries as second wife.’
Jun implies nobility, having advantages at an early age, especially mentors and tutors. But like Thomas Jefferson wrote, there exists a natural aristocracy, characterized by virtuee and talent, rather than inherited wealth. So the implication is one of much potential, perhaps with some implication that its development will be followed by some form of noblesse oblige, some urge to repay one's gifts, to give something back out of gratitude or largesss of spirit. The second part is the Zi, youth, the fact of still having much growing to do. To me, this shines a pretty harsh light on the later Confucian understanding the "Superior Man." It just makes it look pretentious as hell, and counterproductive of all the growing and growing up that we all still have to do.
Undoubtedly, the junzi makes a perfect screen onto which we can project our own ideas: for Wilhelm, superiors and inferiors (‘inferior men’ is his translation for xiao ren, ‘small people’); for Karcher, mostly individual choices in the moment (for me, too); for Carol Anthony, the ‘true self’ as opposed to the ‘ego’.
I think that's right. It's all just different translations and interpretations of the same thing, just like with many other words and phrases in the I Ching, and with (I assume?) translation in general. There's always going to be several possible options.I always had a slight confusion between 'noble one' and 'superior man' but they are one and the same thing
Not wanting to raise the thorny topic of math and probabilities again - but I'd suggest that we're not even talking about half of humanity: because the text is about 'men' we really only might have a percentage of men whom might be 'superior' - unless you equate superior with all of the male half of the species - which is truely off-putting (even for me)!Who is the ‘superior man’?
The person who emailed me this question found the expression ‘superior man’ quite off-putting. I can see why: arranging half of humanity into superiors and inferiors, inviting the reader to identify not just as a good person but as someone better than the rest… none of this feels sympathetic to me, either.
I don't think of small people as necessarily bad, no. But looking through for this post, it seems that when the distinction is between junzi and small people, you do always want to try for the junzi's approach.Yes always been a bit too much of a projection screen I feel in the sense that people will tend to create in their minds an ideal perfect person ( thank you for using 'she' occasionally) who isn't them. In doing so I think they can be like the woman in 4.3
'Don't take this woman.
She sees a man of bronze and there is no self.
No direction bears fruit.'
Whoever the 'noble one'/superior man is she isn't locked up somewhere in a list of ideal qualities, this is to do with awareness, greater or smaller, big view or small view. It does seem to me as you have said elsewhere we do need our small person as in 12.2 for example, to just get on with things without always looking to the bigger purpose. I had a new view of my great person in reading old diaries recently. There would be parts that stood out as almost another person with a whole panoramic view of my life 20.5 style and then there'd be details about daily occurrences and they did stand apart from each other and both were needed of course.
One confusion I have is I had always half thought small people xiao ren, weren't necessarily bad people, 'fei ren' - they aren't are they ? Small people or your 'small person' is not bad in itself. One could say small person is lesser because it may be thinking about what food to buy rather than 'where is my life headed ?' but both noble one and small person are needed.
I always had a slight confusion between 'noble one' and 'superior man' but they are one and the same thing and 'superior man' is just Wilhelm. That's how influential Wilhelm is that the 'superior man' sticks so firmly in my head as a separate entity from 'noble one' or 'junzi' when they are the same thing.
You might have 'yes' for 'oui' and 'yeah' for 'ouai', but I'm not sure about 'yep'...Example: the word oui in French. It means "yes." But, if someone was translating a novel, and the character said "Oui," how should that be translated into English? "Yes"? "Yeah"? "Yep"? They all generally mean the same thing, but English speakers know there's a difference, and which one is picked will affect how we see the scene and the character.
Yes, good points. Though, again, junzi and great person are unrelated.In the case of junzi, it could be they're all right at different times. I do think there are times when inferior/superior, in all its harshness, is exactly correct. And Hilary often points out that "small person" can mean someone who doesn't have a lot of power or imagination - as you say, Trojina, sometimes that's exactly what's called for. "Great person" power should not be brought to bear in every situation, and a lot of things don't require imagination. It might actually make things worse at times.
I don't think of small people as necessarily bad, no. But looking through for this post, it seems that when the distinction is between junzi and small people, you do always want to try for the junzi's approach.
Yes, good points. Though, again, junzi and great person are unrelated.
Not wanting to raise the thorny topic of math and probabilities again - but I'd suggest that we're not even talking about half of humanity: because the text is about 'men' we really only might have a percentage of men whom might be 'superior' - unless you equate superior with all of the male half of the species - which is truely off-putting (even for me)!
But then again, I don't think changing this superior whatever into a woman, or person (not gender-specfic), or being (non-human specifc) really helps at all either.
I've never been particularly bothered by the expression - either the 'man' part or the 'superior' part. For me, what is superior here is not the person, but the action / advice / attitude that the Yi is recommending (or by example, is not advising). It is this that makes us - any of us regardless of our station in life - 'superior' - and that doesn't really give me any heartburn. It is simply to follow advice or take actions that would be good, helpful, friendly, advisable - or even what we might call superior.
And because we're always learning (and making our necessary mistakes) we are also young and noble in doing this.
But then again, maybe that's just my superior, entitle, male ego talking!
Best, David.
‘Superior man’ is how the Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching translates junzi 君子. Bradford Hatcher’s translation is more direct: ‘noble young one’. Zi means ‘child’ (and is gender neutral); jun breaks down into ‘voice’ and ‘governing, controlling’, and means a sovereign or noble – someone with authority over others.
Almost all the Image texts feature this noble one, with just a handful of exceptions. I believe she’s a development, and perhaps a simplification, of the noble one in the Zhouyi.
Oh splendid, let's avoid the controversial topic of probabilities and talk about sexism instead, that should calm everything down nicely!Not wanting to raise the thorny topic of math and probabilities again - but I'd suggest that we're not even talking about half of humanity: because the text is about 'men' we really only might have a percentage of men whom might be 'superior' - unless you equate superior with all of the male half of the species - which is truely off-putting (even for me)!
Perfectly put. Less 'which kind of person are you?' and more 'who will you be today?'...For me, what is superior here is not the person, but the action / advice / attitude that the Yi is recommending (or by example, is not advising).
I think sometimes you find you just are the small person, if you think about it, so that's that - not a moral choice at all.have often seen you say that sometimes taking the small person role isn't a bad thing. You've said it about 12.2 and other lines if I could but remember. Not trying to catch you out but wondering if you have changed your mind about this ?
I recommend opening your Resonance Journal and turning to the Glossary (or going to Help > Language of Change pdf).Ah the great person, that is whom I was also getting muddled with 'superior man'. The great person is in 39.6 for example, so who is he ?
'Going on limping; coming back, mastery.
Good fortune.
Harvest in seeing the great person.'
Great people may be powerful in general, but their most important power is that they see more. They stand at the centre – in the six occurrences of ‘great person’ in moving line texts, five are in lines 2 or 5, the trigrams’ centres – and from this hub their awareness reaches out to encompass the whole situation. The great person can see the longer term and larger possibilities. It’s often ‘fruitful to see great people’ at a time when immediate struggles monopolise your attention, to get the benefit of that higher perspective.
Perhaps so, but this thread is about the 'superior man' and isn't some or many people's objections to the language of the Yi because of it's supposed inherent 'sexism'? And so, should we avoid that at all costs in discussing the 'superior man' - for the sake of keeping the peace?Oh splendid, let's avoid the controversial topic of probabilities and talk about sexism instead, that should calm everything down nicely!
Perhaps so, but this thread is about the 'superior man' and isn't some or many people's objections to the language of the Yi because of it's supposed inherent 'sexism'? And so, should we avoid that at all costs in discussing the 'superior man' - for the sake of keeping the peace?
The point I was making is that for me, this expression is about what people do, and that is what determines if they are or are not superior - and it applies to everyone regardless of sex or gender (or class, or inherited status, etc.).
D.
I have not misinterpreted, nor confused the topic, nor missed the point, nor made this thread about anything else.I think you are making the blog post about something it isn't.
Ah. I never learned "ouai" - my last decent exposure to French was long ago in high school...You might have 'yes' for 'oui' and 'yeah' for 'ouai', but I'm not sure about 'yep'...
...and I completely missed that, or never knew it, or something. Sorry. Must read more carefully.Though, again, junzi and great person are unrelated.
Do you think it could also be someone who does the best they can and acts in the most noble way in a particular situation (which the Yi is pointing them towards)?I think the jun zi is someone on the path to become the great man. They just haven't made the accomplishments yet.
Do you think it could also be someone who does the best they can and acts in the most noble way in a particular situation (which the Yi is pointing them towards)?
Best, D.
Then I pronouce thee 'jun zi'!Yes, I do.
Well, let us know when the answer appears in your head. (I find trawling through all the occurrences of a concept in readings helps.)The 'great person' never meant anything to me in actual readings at all. Looking at your descriptions won't change that. Looking at the glossary doesn't mean I can locate your description of the great man in any of my real life readings, ever, so the question remains at least in my own head.
True.I think you are making the blog post about something it isn't.
Also true. But on this occasion I appreciate the opportunities to get back on topic, so let's do that. (After all, 'superior man' is not Yi's language, it's Wilhelm's language. It's a great shame when that gets in the way of people's connection with the oracle as a whole.)I have been told by Hilary and others that 'going off-topic' is often what happens here and I gather it is even to be encouraged.
I had a go at 'small people' in Language of Change. The fei ren only appear in 12.0 and 8.3, which makes it hard to generalise. I think there's an element of 'not quite real people at all' to it - not your kind of people, with motivations you can't recognise or empathise with, beyond the pale, something you can't relate to. But as I said, that's inseparable from the context, which has a lot to do with the need to connect and relate.Can anyone offer good definitions for
Xiao Ren and Fei Ren next?
In the modern world way of thinking superior is more often than not assigned as meaning a comparative quality, i.e better than, however looking into the roots of the word it has meanings of 'higher' or 'upper' or 'situated above' within a context relating to location or position. This has been retained in medical terminology today where the head would be considered superior to the feet and similarly the feet are inferior to the head, by virtue of their position in the body. Nothing here is commenting on whether the head is better than the feet or the feet are worse than the head.‘Superior man’ is how the Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching translates junzi 君子. Bradford Hatcher’s translation is more direct: ‘noble young one’. Zi means ‘child’ (and is gender neutral); jun breaks down into ‘voice’ and ‘governing, controlling’, and means a sovereign or noble – someone with authority over others.
Undoubtedly, the junzi makes a perfect screen onto which we can project our own ideas: for Wilhelm, superiors and inferiors (‘inferior men’ is his translation for xiao ren, ‘small people’); for Karcher, mostly individual choices in the moment (for me, too); for Carol Anthony, the ‘true self’ as opposed to the ‘ego’.
I've experienced a Fei Ren (as in 8.3) in person, the words that come to mind for me are: lousy and awful and somewhat deranged.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).