The lexicography of yi ๆ
If they plan evil against you, if they devise mischief, they will not succeed. (Psa 20:12)
One of the things that I have had to break myself of, in my breaking away from my mental slavery to the continental philosophers, is the use of the word โmeaningโ or โto meanโ in a descriptive sense, let alone a prescriptive one. The functional language theorists, most notably Trubetskoi, are right. And the Jungians and existentialists are clearly charlatans. If Jordan Peterson is the best pupil they can scrounge up today, then what happened to him in the argument with that crowd of twenty atheist kids on YouTube was as predictable as it was pathetic. โWhat do you mean by โbelieveโ?โ Are you kidding me? If your opponent is clearly talking about epistemic assent to a proposition, donโt come back at him with a definition derived from Nietzsche. It doesnโt work. It makes you look disrespectful and dismissiveโฆ which is exactly how Peterson came off.
Most people, when they are asked what something โmeansโ, they think of examples and anecdotes from their surrounding context and their experience. Thatโs normal. Thatโs how we function every day when we talk to each other. People who think theyโre a bit more intelligent will perhaps run to get a dictionary and look up the โmeaningโ of a word. This actually interposes a problem. Youโre at the lexicographerโs mercy on the most common denotations of a particular word. If the lexicographer is honest (like Dr. Samuel Johnson), he will provide examples from literature of how that word is used. But most people when they reach for the dictionary simply stop at the numbered denotations.
Prince Nicolas Trubetskoi and his protรฉgรฉ Roman Jakobson had a much more grounded and realistic approach to language than Jordan Peterson (or Nietzsche, or Jung). Trubetskoi and Jakobson examined the usage of particular words in a particular corpus of literature. When the word โะบะฐะผะตะฝัโ is used by Dostoevsky, for example, Trubetskoi says, you need to look at the instances where that word appears and examine it in situ. Maybe there is a particular โะบะฐะผะตะฝัโ in Saint Petersburg that happens to match the lengthy description of the โะบะฐะผะตะฝัโ in Crime and Punishment, fine. But it doesnโt matter. Itโs trivia. The โะบะฐะผะตะฝัโ doesnโt correspond to a Jungian archetype or a Platonic form; it has no allegorical value. The question is what Raskolโnikov saw, and how he used it as a hiding place in the text of the novel.
Once you treat words as artefacts of the texts in which they operate, it becomes a hell of a lot easier to discuss them! You can speak intelligibly about the functional semantics without having to resort to abstract โmeaningโ. You can also avoid a lot of the confusion that Peterson provoked in his most recent YouTube debate: oneโs โbeliefโ in the existence and use of a pen on the table simply does not have the same lexical value as โbeliefโ in God. Note that this preference of function over meaning is not postmodernism, which is entirely about asserting power over the author! This is very much so a structuralist, formalist approach to the analysis of texts, but it is also respectful of traditional methods of exegesis which attempt to frame author intention within word choice, syntax and grammar.
And here I would say that the ancient Chinese were remarkably wise in their logographical representation of words. At least, this is how Xu Shen interprets it: meaning pertains to the will, and consists in โobserving the words from the heartโ (ๆ๏ผๅฟไนใไปๅฟๅฏ่จ่็ฅๆไนใ) Yi ๆ is a syssemantograph (huiyi ไผๆ) of a โsoundโ (yin ้ณ) which is made by your โheartโ (xin ๅฟ). Itโs mental noise! In modern Chinese, yi ๆ is used most commonly as โthoughtโ or โideaโ, but it has expanded functions in compounds like yisi ๆๆ โmeaningโ; zhuyi ๆณจๆ โto pay attention, to noteโ; yuanyi ๆฟๆ โto wishโ; jieyi ไปๆ โto care aboutโ; and guyi ๆ ๆ โon purpose, intentionalโ.
That is shown by its relative rarity in the Classics. When referring to the relation or correspondence of a word or phrase to a thing or situation, the terms wei ็บ and wei ่ฌ are used with much greater frequency. The word yi ๆ is used more often for โto think, to comprehendโ, as here:
็กๆฃ็พ่ผใๅกไบ็พ่ผปใ
ๅฑข้กง็พๅใไธ่ผธ็พ่ผใ
็ต่ธฐ็ต้ชใๆพๆฏไธๆใIf you do throw away your wheel-aids,
Which give assistance to the spokes;
And if you constantly look after the driver,
You will not overturn your load,
And in the end will get over the most difficult places;
But you have not thought of this.(Book of Odes ใ่ฉฉ็ถใ, Decade of Qi Fu ็ฅ็ถไนไป, โIn the First Monthโ ๆญฃๆ 10)
This is the sole appearance of yi ๆ in the Odes. The term also appears as โto considerโ in the Rites: ๆ่ซ่ผ้ไนๅบ โHe must consider the gravity or lightness (of the offence)โฆโ (Book of Rites ใ็ฆฎ่จใ 5.47) It also occurs in nominal function as โthoughtโ: ๆ ่ฝๅ ถ้ ใ้ ไน่ฒ๏ผๅฟๆๅพๅปฃ็ใ โIn listening to the singing of the Ya and the Song, the aims and thoughts receive an expansion.โ (Rites 18.49) And also as โforesightโ or โanticipationโ: ๅญ่ ๏ผๅ ๆๆฟๅฟใ โWhat the superior man calls filial piety requires the anticipation of our parentsโ wishes.โ (Rites 24.25) And also, in the Changes, it functions verbally as โto feelโ or โto be impressed withโ: ๅนน็ถไน่ ฑ๏ผๆๆฟ่ไนใ โโHe deals with the troubles caused by his father:โโhe feels that he has entered into the work of his father.โ (Book of Changes ใๆ็ถใ, โMing Yiโ ไทฃๆๅคท 5)
The reference of yi ๆ is always internal: it deals, as we might say, with a personโs subjective state. It belongs, as the graphical derivation suggests, to the realm of the xin ๅฟ, the โheart-mindโ. It did not immediately map onto the state-of-affairs in the external world. The Rites caution that for such to occur, the yi ๆ โthoughtsโ have to be made cheng ่ช โsincereโ:
ๅคไนๆฌฒๆๆๅพทๆผๅคฉไธ่ ๏ผๅ ๆฒปๅ ถๅ๏ผๆฌฒๆฒปๅ ถๅ่ ๏ผๅ ้ฝๅ ถๅฎถ๏ผๆฌฒ้ฝๅ ถๅฎถ่ ๏ผๅ ไฟฎๅ ถ่บซ๏ผๆฌฒไฟฎๅ ถ่บซ่ ๏ผๅ ๆญฃๅ ถๅฟ๏ผๆฌฒๆญฃๅ ถๅฟ่ ๏ผๅ ่ช ๅ ถๆ๏ผๆฌฒ่ช ๅ ถๆ่ ๏ผๅ ่ดๅ ถ็ฅ๏ผ่ด็ฅๅจๆ ผ็ฉใ็ฉๆ ผ่ๅพ็ฅ่ณ๏ผ็ฅ่ณ่ๅพๆ่ช ๏ผๆ่ช ่ๅพๅฟๆญฃ๏ผๅฟๆญฃ่ๅพ่บซไฟฎ๏ผ่บซไฟฎ่ๅพๅฎถ้ฝ๏ผๅฎถ้ฝ่ๅพๅๆฒป๏ผๅๆฒป่ๅพๅคฉไธๅนณใ
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things. Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
(Rites 42.2)
Section 42 in the Rites would later be augmented and made part of the altered canon (the Sishu ใๅๆธใ or Four Books) of the Song-Ming rationalist (lixue ็ๅญฆ) turn in neo-Confucian thought, as the Daxue ใๅคงๅญธใ or โGreat Learningโ. The problem is that extracting it from its setting in the Rites allows one to mistake its functional purpose in the original canon, notwithstanding the fact that it contains valuable commentary on the Odes and on the Documents. The โGreat Learningโ is part of what is in essence an etiquette manual, which serves the literary function of expressing the ideals of Zhou at its height. But in light of the Documents, we should already be aware that these same ideals had already been corrupted and made to serve the interests of the unscrupulous, greedy and power-hungry.
The value of self-cultivation and investigation of things is tied to the original corpus. The Odes are didactically arranged to show the basic proclivities of the human beingโthe need for food, clothing, shelter, parental affection, conjugal love, honour, stability. They also show how animals such as pigeons and rats are able to provide all these things for themselves and each other simply by following Tian ๅคฉ. Although their lives are not free of trouble, at least they donโt have kings bossing them around and demanding their blood and sweat and tears, and distracting them from the care of their dear ones. The Documents are arranged in a fashion that undermines the pretensions to righteousness and authority of each new incoming dynasty, and shows how they are vulnerable to corruption and degeneracy from within. The presentation of the Rites as the third book in the canon is meant to showcase a kind of ahistorical Zhou-style utopia: each person in his proper place, behaving appropriately to his parents, his sibs, his wife and children, to his friends and to his superiors. (It was a noble cause. How did it turn out?)
Zhu Xi saw in the โGreat Learningโ an ideological justification for building a rationalist philosophical system out of bits and pieces of the Rites, along with the Mencius ใๅญๅญใ and the Analects ใ่ซ่ชใ, which in the Han Dynasty were not considered canon but rather commentary. That is to say, he does what Peterson does: he lifts passages out of their textual setting in order to extract their โmeaningโ. Yet that system is deeply at odds with the wisdom of the original canon. Zhu Xi, acting in the belief that he is following Mencius, exalts the status of the yi ๆ, the โthoughtsโ of the human being, into something that can come to reflect Heavenly principles (Tianli ๅคฉ็) through meditation and moral cultivation.
The Ritual School which produced the Rites which Zhu Xi is using here, would strongly beg to differ. The author-compilers of the Documents had no illusions about the perfectibility of the human will or the historical endurance of any purely-human system. All sprouts start off bright and green; all human beings start off with the best of intentions; all dynasties start off with vigorous and righteous reforms. But how does it always turn out? Yet there is always the seed of something new and hopeful even in periods of decline and disorder. For every self-important blustering Count of Chong there is a self-critical and chastened Duke Mu of Qin.
Iโm not a follower of Jaspers, and I donโt necessarily credit the notion of an Achsenzeit. Wisdom has been available to all times and places, though the people who present it must speak in different ways. But it does seem to me that the literary prophet Isaiah and the author of the Documents had much in common. ืึผื ืื ืืืฉืืืืชื ืืืฉืืืืชืืื ืืื ืืจืืืื ืึผืจืื ื ืื ืืืืื โFor my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.โ (Isa 55:8)
The term maแธฅลกวbรข ืืืฉืื derives from the Semitic root แธฅ-s-b ื-ืฉ-ื โto think, to plan, to calculate, to regard, to craft, to devise, to meanโ. Itโs the same root that furnishes the Arabic word muแธฅฤsib ู ุญุงุณุจ โaccountantโ. This word is rarely used in Scripture to mean anything good when itโs human beings doing it. Peopleโs thoughts are generally wicked, perverse and contrary. In Genesis alone: Laban โcalculatesโ against his own daughters after they are married to Jacob (Gen 31:15); Judah โregardsโ his daughter-in-law as a harlot, and uses her as such (38:15); and all of Josephโs brothers โmeanโ him harm, though God brought good out of it (50:20). In Exodus, this word is generally used mor complimentarily to refer to the โcraftโ of a skilled labourer, designing regalia and priestly garb for the Levites (e.g. Exo 35:35); in the books of the Law it is generally more neutral or even positive, being the verb used to โimputeโ guilt or innocence to the accused, or โdeviseโ fitting sentences against transgressors (e.g. Lev 17:4). But the โworkers of iniquityโ in the Psalms continually โplotโ (20:12) and โschemeโ (9:23) and โdevise evilโ (34:4) against their poor victims.
In Second Samuel, here is how the word is used against David:
ืืชึผืืืจ ืืืฉืึผื ืืืึผื ืืฉืืืชึผื ืึผืืืช ืขืึพืขื ืืืืื ืึผืืึผืึผืจ ืืึผืื ืืึผืืจ ืืึผื ืึผืืฉืื ืืืืชึผื ืืฉืืื ืืึผืื ืืชึพื ืึผืืื
ืึผืึพืืืช ื ืืึผืช ืืืึผืื ืื ึผืึผืจืื ืืจืฆื ืืฉืืจ ืื ืืืกืคืึผ ืืืึพืืฉืึผื ืืืืื ื ืคืฉื ืืืฉืื ืืืฉืืืืช ืืืืชึผื ืืึผื ืืึผื ึผืึผ ื ืึผืืAnd the woman said, โWhy then have you planned such a thing against the people of God? For in giving this decision the king convicts himself, inasmuch as the king does not bring his banished one home again. We must all die, we are like water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; but God will not take away the life of him who devises means not to keep his banished one an outcast.โ (2 Sam 14:13-14)
The Hebrew Tanakhโand in fact, the entire Semitic textual traditionโrepeatedly humiliates human pride while still leaving the door open for grace. After all, human plans arenโt the only plans!
ุงู ุงููู ูุงู ุบูู ูู ุดูุก ุญุณูุจุง
โIndeed, God is ever, over all things, an Accountant.โ (Qurโฤn 4:86)
