As a matter of fact, Gunner, Confucius always refused to define 'jen', in much the same way as Lao-Tzu never really defined 'te'. The reason that such sages never set these in stone is because both qualities were known as things that could not be verbally conveyed.
Even though Confucius is usually seen as the rigid, moral preacher in comparison to Lao-Tzu and his very subtle way, even Confucius recognized that the lifeblood of his doctrine was not his teachings. Confucius knew that a man could cleverly deceive people for his entire life...seem to be perfectly and honestly and genuinely moral and righteous...yet, he still would be little more than a fraud, and he would not be an example of 'jen'. 'Jen', like 'te', is a term that cannot really be defined because it appears very mundane or even completely illogical and paradoxical when expressed as an impoverished, literary abstraction. You could say that part of the reason they are not defined is because the very sensation of blood flowing through one's veins is just as much a necessary component of the definition as any and all words.
