You wrote, > I haven't read Rutt's analysis, so I can't comment on that.
I wish you would, as the original comments I made were specifically about inconsistancies in the first 50 or so pages of Rutt's "Zhouyi."
> Frankly, I think your comments reveal that you are out of your depth here.<
No, I think you haven't been paying attention properly.
I have been pointing to logical inconsistancies, and I haven't gone too far beyond that. I've kept my own point of view out of it well enough that Michael couldn't even tell what it was.
> Fu Xi is a mythical creature like Paul Bunyan.
According to Huang Wen-Shan this is not quite true, as there is a written record from the time. And yes I know that myths have been attached to him. And yes, I know that many consider him entirely mythical.
> If we discount Fu Xi does that mean that everything in the '10 Wings' is bunk? Not at all.
I agree, but Richard Rutt doesn't. I'm arguing against his bias. Portraying Zhouyi as a "bunch of meaningless gibberish put together for the sole purpose of fooling people, mainly rulers, and making money" is my characterization of Rutts point of view.
> You simply have to get used to the idea that ancient Chinese lit is full of places where new thoughts are ascribed to ancient mythological beings.
I am well aware of the practice of attributing great feats to one person, or signing the name of a long dead person to a new work.
> If you really study the subject (as I have, for many years) you'll see what I mean.
Well, I've been studing the I Ching for about 35 years. Is that OK?
> Likewise, does everyplace where you see Zi yue (Confucius said) have to really be a quote from Confucius or the document should be consigned to the trash? Not at all.
That trashing is what I'm arguing against! If one of the sources that points to Confucius' take on the Ten Wings is Confucius' grandson, and it ends up in the Rutts dustbin, I'd say that's wrong.
> You need to get over a rigid expectation like this that it's either all literally true or it's all nonsense.
You misunderstand - that's Rutts point of view, and I'm arguing against it.
If you go back to the specifics about Rutts work and take each one in detail you might get what I'm saying.
> As far as "When the documents at hand say that there are versions which date from before the versions you have, whether this is legitimate testimony or only "hearsay" we may not know, but it is not conjecture." -I don't know where you are getting this and I wonder if perhaps you yourself are engaging in the time honored Chinese process of putting words into the mouths of the ancients.
Again you misunderstand. The Eighth Wing says Zhouyi is a microcosm patterned after nature. Richard Rutt claims that this is false. That the Eighth Wing says this means it is *not* conjecture. It is testimony. To classify testimony as conjecture isn't accurate. Rutt has no way of knowing whether it is conjecture or not and neither do you.
> The Mawangdui documents (which I studied in the original manuscript form for my masters at Yale) were not retranslations.
If the oldest Zhouyi used loan characters it cannot be the first edition. An earlier edition used the characters that the loans substituted for. Using substitute terms is technically a translation.
> Over the years the script in use has changed. Earlier manuscripts use earlier forms. This is different from translation or retranslation.
OK. I guess you missed my use of the term "updated." Is it not possible that the extant copies were rewritten to conform to then-new political realities? Or rewritten, as Wilhelm/Baynes says, from scholarly text to fortune-telling?
> Once again, I suggest you let it go as you are very much out of your depth. <
You don't know what I'm talking about. I give you specifics and you give me back generalities. Your reviewing my comments on Rutt's work, without reading that work, you are in no position to judge my depth of understanding.
I wish you would read Rutts pages, and address my specific points.
Short of that you might want to take back your opinion of my depth.