My position is less that Shi is flawed than Shi is lexical; i.e, you say tomato, they say xihongshi. The concept is not something that does not exist in the West; it's just something that is somewhat difficult to translate, and with many Chinese terms, not easily adaptable to English (Shi is also time, shi is the Chinese verb to be, and so on).
There is a greater emphasis on indirectness in Chinese strategy as opposed to Western or Russian strategy; i.e, the Chinese strategy of using the American corporate sector to keep Western regime changers off their back, but that can't be attributed to Shi; it's more of an issue of how a canny operator makes adequate decisions from a position of weakness.
The better comparison might be comparing Shi as a Panda-hugger equivalent to the Panda Slugger Michael Pillsbury's fretting over "shashoujian / assassin's mace" weapons, which sound a lot more mysterious and profound than the idiomatic American translation "silver bullet". Of course the adequate translation needs to be made, but simply talking in terms of strategic potential can give us 80% of it.
There is a greater emphasis on indirectness in Chinese strategy as opposed to Western or Russian strategy; i.e, the Chinese strategy of using the American corporate sector to keep Western regime changers off their back, but that can't be attributed to Shi; it's more of an issue of how a canny operator makes adequate decisions from a position of weakness.
The better comparison might be comparing Shi as a Panda-hugger equivalent to the Panda Slugger Michael Pillsbury's fretting over "shashoujian / assassin's mace" weapons, which sound a lot more mysterious and profound than the idiomatic American translation "silver bullet". Of course the adequate translation needs to be made, but simply talking in terms of strategic potential can give us 80% of it.
Comment