I just noticed that China Daily ran another one of my pieces last Friday in the Beijing Weekend section.  Here’s the link to the on-line version.    They made one error, changing a word that mangles a sentence. They used "a slightly different" as a stand-in for "nuanced," and I think their choice creates an awkward sentence.  Maybe it is just a problem in the web version, but I have made the correction in the copied text below the fold.   This is not a big deal.  It is the only editing choice that I would take exception to in eight articles.

    They have now published all of the pieces I have submitted, which means I should start churning out some new ones.  Here’s a question for you all: what topics should I write about?  You can click on the "Beijing Weekend" link at the bottom of this post to see what I have already done for them.  What facets of modern life would benefit from insights of Confucianism or Taoism?  Or, conversely, what aspects of those ancient philosophies might be especially useful for the times we live in now? 

Precise definition of space is no simple name game
By Sam Crane(China Daily)
Updated: 2006-11-10 09:21

Confucius
reminds us that names are important: "Naming enables the noble-minded
to speak, and speech enables the noble-minded to act" (Analects, 13.3).
It seems that the International Astronomers Union (IAU), in proposing a
new definition for "planet," is following this Confucian idea, but not
without some controversy.

Apparently, there had never been
precise, scientific criteria that would allow for a clear distinction
between a planet and other heavenly bodies, like moons and asteroids.
This is a problem because, as technology has evolved, more objects have
been discovered that appear to be planet-like, but not quite what our
common sense might accept as a true planet. And at least one
established planet, Pluto, has come to be considered something less
than a real planet.

Without a precise definition for planets,
astronomers, just as Confucius had warned, may not be able to act as
they usually do: making observations and debating theories. They have
to rectify names.

This is where the trouble starts. Some
scientists worry that the new criteria will dilute the sense of the
term "planet" by allowing too many objects to be named as such. Others
fret that we might lose Pluto. There could be more than 50, or only
eight, planets, depending upon the specific definition. "It’s a mess,"
one astronomer complained.

Does this mean that Confucius is wrong? Does an attempt to rectify names actually create more problems than it solves?

Not
really. Confucius, after all, is proposing a means of ethical
government, not scientific categorization. He is concerned with justice
and humanity. A wise leader has to make sure that people live up to
their social and political roles "ruler a ruler, minister a minister,
father a father." (Analects 12.11). One has to earn the name "father"
through the performance of duty. If a person does not fulfil his
responsibilities as a "minister" or a "ruler," than he should forfeit
the name.

But determining whether a social obligation is truly
accomplished is a  matter of [nuanced] a slightly different assessment of
particular circumstances. There is no one, clear standard, but rather
only a case-by-case consideration based upon the unique conditions
faced by each individual. It is not as cut and dry as scientific
classification.

Yet even if Confucian rectification of names is a
social and ethical, and not strictly a scientific, project, it can
create its own difficulties. How do we know when a father has fully
lived up to his duties and responsibilities? Or a minister? Or a mother
or sister or brother? It might be possible to see when a person is
obviously failing in his or her obligations, but how can we really know
if he or she is intentionally noble-minded? Only individuals can know,
in their hearts, if they are consistently doing the right thing.

So, naming, either scientifically or ethically, is a complex process.

Some
of the astronomers might be tempted to just give up the effort of
precise definition. They might find inspiration in philosophical
Taoism, which tells us that the fullness of existence, Tao, cannot be
understood by analysis and naming. Zhuang Zi puts it nicely: "In
difference there’s no difference, and in division, no division The sage
embraces it all. Everyone else divides things, and uses one to reveal
the other. Therefore I say: ‘Those who divide things cannot see’."

In pursuing the ideal of precise names, the astronomers might well be blinding themselves to the universe.

Contact the author at scrane@Williams.edu

Sam Crane teaches Chinese philosophy and politics at Williams College in Massachusetts, USA.