大知閑閑，小知閒閒；大言炎炎，小言詹詹。其寐也魂交，其覺也形開，與接為構，日以心鬭。縵者，窖者，密者。小恐惴惴，大恐縵縵。其發若機栝，其司是非之謂也；其留如詛盟，其守勝之謂也；其殺如秋冬，以言其日消也；其溺之所為之，不可使復之也；其厭也如緘，以言其老洫也；近死之心，莫使復陽也。喜怒哀樂，慮嘆變慹，姚佚啟態；樂出虛，蒸成菌。日夜相代乎前，而莫知其所萌。已乎已乎！旦暮得此，其所由以生乎！
Big knowing (zhi 知) is bound and idle[1]; Small knowing is partial and incomplete; big speech is hot and rousing; Small speech is verbose and indistinct. When sleeping the spirit wanders, upon waking the body rushes out, meeting and receiving [others] for building schemes, daily using the heart-mind in struggle. There are hesitations, pitfalls, and secrets, [there are] small fears that are apprehensive and worried, [there are] great fears like [endless] sheets of silk. [Everyone makes] pronouncements [flying out] like arrows from a bow, they take charge of naming of right and wrong, they stand their ground as if having sworn an oath; they struggle for victory in speech, and they decline like autumn and winter, and so dwindle like the light of day. [Like] those who have drowned in water, they cannot be ordered to return home; their distastes hold them like binding cords, taking words they (become) (dry overgrown) ditch, their heart-minds approach death and cannot return to the light. (Zhuangzi 2/3/26–29)
[1] 大知閑閑
Legge: “Great knowledge is wide and comprehensive; small knowledge is partial and restricted. Great speech is exact and complete; small speech is (merely) so much talk.”
Watson: “Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and limpid; little words are shrill and quarrelsome.”
Ziporyn: “A large consciousness is idle and spacey” (Ziporyn 2009: 9).
Commentary: 大智广博，小智偏下，大言生气凌人，小言争辩不休。"Great knowledge is broad and extensive; small knowledge is biased and narrow-minded; great speech (exaggeration) is grand and overbearing; small speech is contentious and unceasing."
My Commentary:
My interpretation is unconventional: I pair big knowledge and small knowledge together as both being problematic, in the same way that big speech and small speech are both problematic.
The dilemma is how to interpret 大知閑閑. Watson and Legge both view 大知 positively but try to force a parallel structure with 大言. Before looking at dazhi we can look at dayan.
There are two problems with their translations of 大言炎炎: the first is that the better translation is "great speech is bright and incendiary." This is a more direct translation (fiery) with a stronger series of connotations: n: fire; TCM: internal heat, a cause of disease; n: anger; v: to get angry; adj: fiery, flaming, or popular ("hot"). Legge and Watson treat 火 more like 光 (bright, smooth, polished), but without any reason other than trying to force a positive connotation parallel to their positive translations of 大知.
The second problem is that Zhuangzi is actually quite critical of exaggeration:
First, exaggeration is a further distortion of communication. If language is already an imperfect abstraction, then exaggeration further distorts the relationship between language and ongoing conditions.
Second, exaggeration exacerbates the problems of mistrust. If language is an imperfect conceptualization this is even more so for “great words.” Exaggeration creates aggrandized conceptualizations aimed in a particular direction for a particular effect.
The irony here is that Zhuangzi uses exaggeration to great effect, but that effect is often to draw attention to the shortcomings of language and knowledge (as opposed to applying a concept via shi/fei distinction and then “using” that concept appropriately).
The third problem is that Zhuangzi does not view speech as the source of illumination. Words function like traps and snares, "capturing" meaning. [*] Once the meaning is found the words are not needed. Words are empty, and only by accepting the emptiness of words can we really understand how to have a word.
More frequently, words obscure the Way. Words are actually complex schema types that combine distinctions and judgments (and really, all distinctions are judgments). Words "carve up" the world; they create objects (calling a thing makes it so), they create footpaths, and they create fixed systems of understanding.
So, big speech is not clear, limpid, complete, or any other of the adjectives applied; big speech (exaggeration) attempts to overcome the intrinsic uncertainty of knowledge through overstatement; but exaggeration is by nature “unrealistic” and so breeds suspicion, suspicion leads to contention, contention leads to dispute, and so forth.
So: If we reject a positive reading of
"big words," this suggests we should also be skeptical of "big
knowing." So how should we view 大知? All
translations agree that big knowledge or big knowing should be interpreted in a
positive manner. I offer a different approach that views 大知 in a critical light, parallel to 大言.
Stay tuned for updates. Currently revising notes for the second part of this commentary, which may form part of a conference paper.
If you curious in reading an earlier version of this argument in article form, please DM me at: Wandering Clouds (@hingesofdao) / Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment