Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Actually is it far more complictated, than perhaps you might wish it to be, even if the underlying principles are simple anything other that the understanding and expresiion of them is complicated.
"beneficial to divine" doesnt change the essence of what the reading means, in fact it makes it stronger and more direct.
But it raises a rathere large and important point. What value should we place on transations, at what point, given that we will never know if there are more documents or fragements to find that might alter our understanding completely, should we be saying, yes that is the definitive translation.
The other problem is that the variety of different translations shows how difficult it is to translate terms that have no direct and immediate correlations in another language or even perhaps a direct correlation with anyones experience or understanding.
So while it is interesting I dont think that the essence of the reading is going to be changed by a few words, and if it is then it not the essence that we are readining but a sinological game that will never have or give proper answers.
One major problem with translation is that we are assuming that the authors use of words was a aprticularly good one in the forst place. One only has to read a few books on any subject to realise that some authors are for more erudite and knowledgable in their use of language and so able to find just the right words to describe what they want to say. We dont know if King Wen or any of the other authors, were skilled in their use of language or even if they found it possible to describe what might be described as intangible essences.
Unless we can be confident that they were 100% accurate in the first instance it hardly seems to be relevant that we have the "correct " translation, especially when some things cannot even be discribed clearly in words and there is no corresponding equivalent in another language either.
If there was a term in English that had the equivalent of Qi we would not have to use the original word or "translate" it as energy, or any other number of variants of the same thing. Qi is Qi, it doesnt matter what the word is, who knows if Qi is even a good word in Chines for it, just because everyone that reads Chinese knows what the wrod Qi means really diesnt mean that they know what Qi is. Someone that has never heard the word Qi can be quite capable of knowing what Qi is, they might call if Flumf instead, same thing, how would you translate Flumf into french Duth or German, there is no equivalent and unless you "knew" what Flumf was there would only be a vaugue notion of what is was, how it connects and relates and the "translations" would be essentiall without any real merit.
But I will still read the references you have so kindly provided.
"All I wanted to know is what answer you exactly got from the Yijing - which hexagram, moving lines if you had any, and which translation or interpretation you used during your reading."
Why?
Why would you think you needed that, think that it was important, that you had any right or authority to judge my interpretations of my own reading.
Why would you want to know what someones personal reading said. I have given you my interpretation and that is all you need to know. But the question of why you want to know, and what might be the result of that disclosure, and if it is relevant or possible to interpret someone elses reading is complex, as it invokes a myraid of other factors which a cannot be assumed to be correct without proper examination. So the process of examination IS complicated.
I shall certainly read the links you provide but ultimately the belief in anything that anyone says can only be measured and evaluated by the criteria of the underlying principles that it purports to
"beneficial to divine" doesnt change the essence of what the reading means, in fact it makes it stronger and more direct.
But it raises a rathere large and important point. What value should we place on transations, at what point, given that we will never know if there are more documents or fragements to find that might alter our understanding completely, should we be saying, yes that is the definitive translation.
The other problem is that the variety of different translations shows how difficult it is to translate terms that have no direct and immediate correlations in another language or even perhaps a direct correlation with anyones experience or understanding.
So while it is interesting I dont think that the essence of the reading is going to be changed by a few words, and if it is then it not the essence that we are readining but a sinological game that will never have or give proper answers.
One major problem with translation is that we are assuming that the authors use of words was a aprticularly good one in the forst place. One only has to read a few books on any subject to realise that some authors are for more erudite and knowledgable in their use of language and so able to find just the right words to describe what they want to say. We dont know if King Wen or any of the other authors, were skilled in their use of language or even if they found it possible to describe what might be described as intangible essences.
Unless we can be confident that they were 100% accurate in the first instance it hardly seems to be relevant that we have the "correct " translation, especially when some things cannot even be discribed clearly in words and there is no corresponding equivalent in another language either.
If there was a term in English that had the equivalent of Qi we would not have to use the original word or "translate" it as energy, or any other number of variants of the same thing. Qi is Qi, it doesnt matter what the word is, who knows if Qi is even a good word in Chines for it, just because everyone that reads Chinese knows what the wrod Qi means really diesnt mean that they know what Qi is. Someone that has never heard the word Qi can be quite capable of knowing what Qi is, they might call if Flumf instead, same thing, how would you translate Flumf into french Duth or German, there is no equivalent and unless you "knew" what Flumf was there would only be a vaugue notion of what is was, how it connects and relates and the "translations" would be essentiall without any real merit.
But I will still read the references you have so kindly provided.
"All I wanted to know is what answer you exactly got from the Yijing - which hexagram, moving lines if you had any, and which translation or interpretation you used during your reading."
Why?
Why would you think you needed that, think that it was important, that you had any right or authority to judge my interpretations of my own reading.
Why would you want to know what someones personal reading said. I have given you my interpretation and that is all you need to know. But the question of why you want to know, and what might be the result of that disclosure, and if it is relevant or possible to interpret someone elses reading is complex, as it invokes a myraid of other factors which a cannot be assumed to be correct without proper examination. So the process of examination IS complicated.
I shall certainly read the links you provide but ultimately the belief in anything that anyone says can only be measured and evaluated by the criteria of the underlying principles that it purports to