Talk:Ma (negative space)

Speedy deletion (old)

User 0bvious: I contest the speedy deletion of this page. I believe the concept of 'Ma' is worthy of its own page. Its use in art is widely recognised. The term is one for which there is no English equivalent, true, but neither is there an equivalent for the Japanese word 'Mu', which similarly can be found in various uses. Mu in fact has a very detailed English language Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29 ). It was for this reason that I decided to start the Ma page. I intend to research and add to the page. I have started a conversation elsewhere ( http://ask.metafilter.com/79537/Defining-the-Japanese-Concept-of-Ma ) and will continue reading up on Ma until I feel I can create a more detailed article.

Thanks

If you are right, you will be able to find some good citations for its use in English (I hope you do) but as it currently reads it is just a japanese word and we can hardly have articles on all words in all languages ... good luck in your search; I will have a look too. It might be a good idea to get a name and sign your comments with 4 tildes Abtract (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to WP:PROD, the prod tag is used for uncontested deletions only. You can contest the deletion by removing the tag. While an explanation should be given, it doesn't have to be. The tag was removed, Someone else above also clearly opposes it, and I also think that this should at least receive an AFD. I'm not sure I would call it a keep, but I also would call it controversial enough to discuss it. If you want to AFD it and aren't sure how, I'll be glad to do it for you.--UsaSatsui (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. Abtract (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion is here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... you are a gent. Abtract (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article has been added to extensively. Please see here for further elaboration on my claim for NON-deletion of this article. Thanks, 0bvious (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also please see article negative space for why this article is now redundant. Abtract (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not redundant, because "ma" is not the same as negative space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.66.127 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Crying of Lot 49

I am tempted to remove this text:

Thomas Pynchon's book The Crying of Lot 49 stresses the concept of waste in language, in terms of negative space determining outcomes of actual events.

...since it sounds weakly linked to "ma", at best. Is this directly related to the Japanese concept of ma, or is the connection to "ma" original research? A reliable source connecting Pynchon's book to "ma" would clear this up. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds like an original -and in no way widely accepted- reading of Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Plus, The Crying of Lot 49 stresses the concept of waste in communicational systems, not exclusively in language. And he does not do it "in terms of negative space determining outcomes of actual events." Also, there are no references to either the concept of "ma" or that of "negative space" in Lot 49. --Oulipal (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ma not equal to Negative Space

Ma may deserve an entry but from reading discussions elsewhere (eg http://ask.metafilter.com/79537/Defining-the-Japanese-Concept-of-Ma) there is no consensus that imposing "negative space" as the dominant interpretation is appropriate. My proposal would be to rename this page to :"Ma (Japanese concept of space)" Ross bencina (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, https://wawaza.com/pages/when-less-is-more-the-concept-of-japanese-ma.html gives a much better description of this concept than the main Wiki-article - Specifically:

'MA' is the emptiness full of possibilities, like a promise yet to be fulfilled. --DLMcN (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ross bencina about renaming the page - but could not see how to do it. It would probably involve deleting the old article and then creating a new one with exactly the same content. --DLMcN (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the rename. Also the poem is unattributed, but is actually part 11 of the Tao Te Ching, a Chinese book/poem - it is not really appropriate on a page about a Japanese concept. In it's wider context, that part is also reflective of a different concept; it's not really 'ma' ShaneNZ (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yohaku

I've also seen "Yohaku" mentioned in connection with the same concept: [1] [2]. Could somebody clarify what the difference is between the two? Bonomont (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Word"/"Etymology" Section Should Be Removed

This is content that belongs to wiktionary.org. The description is also not appropriate for Wikipedia because the description is not precise and is very vague. This is what you'd expect from a teacher rather than Wikipedia. The sourced used to back up the description in the second line does not mention Ma as a negative space like with the rest of this page. The final two lines also are too wordy and consist of too many translated definitions, again this is what you put on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.

Wiktionary page on Ma: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%96%93#Japanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by PixelBytes (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that etymology of the word relevant and a bit helpful in understanding the concept. Here we see that it's illustrated as sun/moon coming in from a door, showing how the concept is something immaterial inhabiting an empty space... I liked that this section existed, I think it was helpful.

I do agree though that the last part of this section is wordy and unhelpful.

I went ahead and renamed the section to 'etymology' and removed the last sentence. If you want to dig it out of the history and add it to wiktionary go ahead, I'm not really familiar with how wiktionary articles should look. Киан (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Original research based on a non-rs source's clunky translation

I've removced the Daodejing pastiche, pure invention. This is how the text runs in a competent translation (Chad Hansen's Tao Te Ching, Duncan Baird Publications 2009 p.59) with the Chinese text. It is false to assert that 'Examples of the character ma appear in this chapter (11) of the Tao Te Ching'. I.e.

Thirty spokes join one hub (三十輻，共一轂)

though the cart's use lies where they are absent.(當其無，有車之用)

Throwing clay to make a vessel; (埏埴以為器)
the vessel's use lies where the clay is absent; (當其無，有器之用)

Sculpting windows and doors to make a room; (鑿戶牖以為室)

The room's use lies where they are absent.當其無，有室之用 >

As anyone can see at a glance, the character 間 jiān/which is read ma in Japanese does not occur in this passage, but ma is read into the Chinese character 無 (wú), here meaning absence, but in the website version translated as 'space', (ergo 'ma'). Most of the citations here come from unreliable websites pushing the 'ma' fantasy. The page as written is not worth a nob of goat's shit.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can find better sources, please do. I've noticed a lot of these articles - including ones like wabi-sabi - tend towards those sorts of sources. In the meantime, I'll be fixing up the lang tags, as I should've used transl tags in the first place.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)