Demonic_Duck Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:32 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:32 PM Kai Script is 楷書. 書 means book. Kai Script itself is a book. The sentences in the Kai book are contained in all the characters of the script.Given that your entire theory revolves around multiple meanings of characters, it's ironic that you aren't familiar with the other meanings of 書. Its original meaning isn't "book" at all, but "write". In the case of 楷書 it means "writing style", an extension of that original meaning.I'm not familiar with Chinese etymological history, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first recorded instance of the word 楷書 came before the first recorded instance of 書 to mean "book".
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:34 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:34 PM Imron, 士 doctrines are encrypted in the code. They didn't want their secret doctrines known to non 士. The PRC 'simplified' Chinese characters. The simplification exercise may be seen as an attempt to make decryption more difficult. Taiwan kept Traditional Script, but also modified some characters. The 士 in Taiwan (and HK, Macau) also did not want the non-士 in Taiwan to understand the code. So they couldn't stick it to Mao. In all countries that used 漢字, the 士 kept quiet about the Code because they did not want non-士 to know.
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:37 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:37 PM Demonic_Duck, I am familiar with polysemic meanings of 書. This does not detract from the fact that it does also mean 'book'.
Demonic_Duck Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:38 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:38 PM 士 doctrines are encrypted in the code. They didn't want their secret doctrines known to non 士. The PRC 'simplified' Chinese characters. The simplification exercise may be seen as an attempt to make decryption more difficult. Taiwan kept Traditional Script, but also modified some characters. The 士 in Taiwan (and HK, Macau) also did not want the non-士 in Taiwan to understand the code. So they couldn't stick it to Mao. In all countries that used 漢字, the 士 kept quiet about the Code because they did not want non-士 to know. By what definition of conspiracy theory is that not one? 1
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:40 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:40 PM Angelina, I have no expenses of any significance with the book other that sending out some complementary copies, which I am happy to do. Feedback can come over time. I am not in a hurry.
Angelina Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:42 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:42 PM Ah, I see. The part about Chinese characters being too difficult, powerful people either refusing to change them in order to help children with their literacy skills, or having a power struggle during the Cultural Revolution, sounds interesting. I was and still am interested in it. Then, the act of cracking the code does not make a valid argument. My advice is to stick to the idea of how difficult characters are, maybe look for ways to make learning Chinese more accessible, in general. Read more on 文字學, yet, be careful before you make a statement. I don't think there is a secret code Chinese characters tell us. Although the writing system was probably influenced by dualism. I don't think it is possible for you to crack the code.
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:45 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:45 PM Demonic_Duck, There is no mention of a conspiracy theory in my book. I don't think the 士 in the various countries are conspiring to keep silent. I think they all happen to be in a situation where none of them have any incentive to disclose the Code.
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:49 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:49 PM Angelina, I think I cracked the code. But it's OK if you don't think I did. If anyone reads my book and comes to the conundrum they will understand. That is the part relating to 五行.
Demonic_Duck Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:57 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 05:57 PM I am familiar with polysemic meanings of 書. This does not detract from the fact that it does also mean 'book'. In some contexts, yes. But there's nothing magical about divorcing the character of its context and then reading one of its other meanings into it.
Angelina Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:00 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:00 PM There are all kinds of conspiracies, some really cool books written on certain topics. Looking for a secret code in Chinese characters might be the wrong road to take. When you look at what Mao told Kissinger on Chinese language being not bad, Chinese characters not good, you can see some duality and double meaning. You made a point there. Not quite sure if there is a secret code in Chinese characters.
Angelina Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:08 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:08 PM One thing though, many Chinese characters consist of two parts: a phonetic and a semantic part, this makes sense, however, I am afraid that you were reading too much into it. Here is one academic paper Chinese characters can be separated into four classes of symbols: pictographs, indicatives, ideographs, and semantic-phonetic compounds. This last category comprises the vast bulk of the language—roughly 81% (Chen, Allport, & Marshall, 1996). These characters are formed by joining together a character with a related meaning (the semantic element or “radical”) and another character (the “phonetic” element) to indicate its pronunciation. 1
imron Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:21 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:21 PM They didn't want their secret doctrines known to non 士. Ok, but it's still not clear what could be so super secret that they would want to do this. Also, are you concerned at all that now you have discovered and are publicizing this code that the 士 might try to silence you?
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:43 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:43 PM imron, I was talking to a HK publisher then I pulled out and self-published. I did not like book sellers having unscheduled and unknown holidays. The 士 will try to silence or discredit me. I knew that before I published the book. I am sufficiently old not to care. I think it is more likely that they will try to discredit me. For all I know, they may be watching this thread right now.
Shelley Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:43 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:43 PM Just because I wouldn't buy your book doesn't mean I won't join in this discussion. it would be interesting to know more about you, your qualifications, education, some life experiences that might be relevant to your book. @Angelina "li3wei1 Angelina, Shelley was saying she was in no position to comment on the book because she hadn't read it. not exactly" Yes exactly, I agree with li3wei1's interpretation of what I said and the rest of that post. "Are you sure you are 100% unqualified to comment?" Angelina, Shelley was saying she was in no position to comment on the book because she hadn't read it. Many of us take the same position. If we haven't read something or seen something, we cannot comment meaningfully on it. We can comment on the ideas WKC has put forward in this thread, but we reserve comment on the book itself until we've seen it. You're free to comment about anything you like, whether you've read it or not, but your credibility may suffer.
Angelina Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:48 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:48 PM Shelley well then, let's keep our comments to what we know at this point
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:54 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:54 PM Angeline, Thanks for the academic paper. I am aaware of 六書. I believe that DeFrancis puts the percentage of semantic-phonetic compounds at 97%. But even semantic-phonetic compounds can be read. For example 假 can be read to say 叚 (false) 亻(man) 假 (vacation). This, of course, raises the question of who the false man is. But the picture starts taking shape when more and more characters are read. 馬 is traditionally thought to be a pictograph but I decrypt the message in my book.
Shelley Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:56 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 06:56 PM Angelina, yes.
Angelina Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:00 PM Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:00 PM But even semantic-phonetic compounds can be read. For example 假 can be read to say 叚 (false) 亻(man) 假 (vacation). This, of course, raises the question of who the false man is. But the picture starts taking shape when more and more characters are read. I can't see any meaning here, sorry. 1
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:06 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:06 PM Shelly, I have an undergraduate degree from the University of East Anglia in Economics and Philosophy. One philosophy paper that helped me was semantic logic. One economics paper that helped me was econometrics (applied mathematics which is applied logic). I have a masters degree from Imperial College in management science (which has now become Imperial's MBA programme). Management science is operations researched based, which is again applied mathematics. Mathematics is logic. I worked as a banker. I have always read widely. I used to build my own PCs, lots of different things that involved figuring out how things work. The life experience that helped most was being retired with lots of time to look as Oracle Script and Seal Script, time to read the dictionaries. I'm sure the 士 will attack my academic credentials. But it does not matter. The book is published. There are copies being sold. There are complementary copies that are being distributed. The genie is out of the bag. It is too late for the 士 to stop the book.
WKC Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:08 PM Author Report Posted September 15, 2016 at 07:08 PM Angelina, No worries. Perhaps it is only me who understands who the 'false man' is. The false man is given a vacation – a permanent vacation.
Recommended Posts