shu, li, zhong yong and the battle now!

early, late earth?

i'd like to stress the importance of li in relation with shu & try to problematize the quadrant of prudence (yan ren) with decisiveness (ming). the answer is zhong-yong. the right balance that best reflects t'ien. as it turns, the only way to achieve zhong-yong is practicing it.

this reflects the chun-tzu. one can read zhong-yong with aristotle glasses:

in everything that is continuous and divisible it is possible to take more, less, or an equal amount, and that either in terms of the thing itself or relatively to us; and the equal is an intermediate between excess and defect (ethica eudemia, 1106, a 2629)

intermediate between excess and defect, which is why zhu xi, the neo-confucianist master would advise,

"a friend should neither be too close or too remote." (a deep thought)

this middle is zhong-yong. one more thing. zhong-yong has two sides: xing is the internal (thought-driven), while li is external, (behavior-oriented). the problem of unifying the li and xing is exactly the problem of combining and unifying the internal and the external. zhong-yong can be seen as a balance between internal(self)/external(others)-axis intersecting a consensus/community axis. according to confucius, this is how we become political & social individuals. there is no possibility of jen (virtue) without a community.    
what we learn from confucianism concerning li is that as society, we face a disorientation. rituals have become fetishized. there's a fresh, redeeming possibility for genuine exchange, but it takes to turn the present value of the ritual upside down. 

perhaps in the face of fetishized and stereotyped rituals we have the imperative to create our own li from scratch. decisiveness is critical to find transcultural lost symbols, reinscribing them into new contexts. there is always room for transformation and novelty. our generation is in need of material and spiritual actions-and-reactions. we could help replenish our community with a renewed sense of purpose. in the end this yajna, only a bit different. an offering to our possible best selves. 

we have speculated in class whether we still have time to change things in the world. what if that vision needs to be revised? look at the astronomy and geology of things. the process at work, the flow that moves through things. the history of the world is a history of ghosts: people, traces, remnants scattered, dispersed into geological & historical time. the world is in constant flow. why fighting that? is a doomed planet in the distant future that unpalatable?

oh, but that's far away.

our task is the present. our deeds belong in this instantg, our future is NOW, this dharma. this defective, but always perfectible world.

our battle is in this generation!

i am closing this post next wednesday 11pm.

understanding Brahman through Spinoza's lenses (post for comment)

Spinoza

humata, hukhta, huvarshta. a few thoughts regarding our first week.

1- i suggested seeing Brahman as Spinoza's God, i.e., God-as-the-universe, a Godverse.

Spinoza is referred to as a pantheist, but let's be clear. what's important here is the idea of an immanent (and some say transcendent)*  God, which elicits a couple of questions:

(a) does the whole universe = God? (b) or is the universe in God? 

(a) and (b) are different. (b) means panentheism. (a) means "all is God." (i refer you to my simile of the cell in my liver saying "i'm Triff" (ok, but it stretches it a bit). 

it's difficult to be a pantheist and not a monist (the idea being that all can be explained in or reduced to one substance the ONE). is hinduism a monism? well, it definitely has a monistic gene.

Brahman is presented as a trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. this is not like the christian trinity. this is more a S-B-V a balance of forces: B (creator), S (destroyer), V (worker, vish means "to work" ). Vishnu is a sort of guardian, gatekeeper, a sustainer.

now given this structure let's speculate: does hinduism suggest there is more order than chaos in the universe?

2- is Spinoza's Godverse self-conscious? The answer is not that simple. I side for "no". But that is not a demotion at all. Take into account that  (a) Spinoza doesn't share Descartes' mind/body dualism.
(b) Consciousness for Spinoza is not generic. Not because one thinks one has consciousness.
(c) self-consciousness implies self-positing. If Godverse is infinite, that self-positing presents an obvious tension, i.e., it constrains Godverse's infiniteness.

3- Is Spinoza's Godverse FREE? methinks not. this conclusion demands a clarification.

Spinoza's Godverse is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from ITS divine nature.

all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles (Ip17s1).

the universe's existence is absolutely necessary. that is to say, it's impossible that God should exist & not the universe (thus, the Godverse). This does not mean that God does not cause ("cause" is better than "create" here) the universe to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence.

at the same time, God could not have done otherwise. there are no possible alternatives to the actual universe, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that universe.

everything is absolutely and necessarily determined:

(Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. 

and this one:

(Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.

Here is another determinist Spinozist morsel:

(...) the infant believes that it is by free will that it seeks the breast; the angry boy believes that by free will he wishes vengeance; the timid man thinks it is with free will he seeks flight; the drunkard believes that by a free command of his mind he speaks the things which when sober he wishes he had left unsaid. ... All believe that they speak by a free command of the mind, whilst, in truth, they have no power to restrain the impulse which they have to speak (...)

 4- we got a discussion going on the subject of Hinduism on the subject of moksha or liberation. the word "confusion" mistakenly standing for the moksha link (i suggested for a reason) i was put on the spot. then, i explained the mistake in terms of a problematics of the idea of salvation through the interpretation of the patanjali sutras. i hinted that salvation can be a double edge sword. the topic elicited a spirited discussion (by the way, in theology, the field dealing with salvation is known as soteriology. we'll be talking about it in more detail).   

what are your thoughts? (i prefer if you have your comments posted by tuesday next week. remember:150 words minimum)


NOTA BENE: veronica approached me at the end of the class and asked me to structure more our discussions so that your observations take place after we've had time to present the lecture, sources, etc. i agree. so, next class, the order is: 1- lecture first, then 2- we read and then 3- we get the discussion going. now, that doesn't mean you have to be enforceably silent. if you have a question (not a point) let's address it, f it is a longer point let's wait a bit. in general that has always been the model, only that this is a more precocious class :)
_______________
*transcendent & immanent come together in the scholastic definition of God. transcendent means above and beyond, for example, if God exists above and beyond the universe, God is transcendent. immanent means "remaining within", "inherent". judeo-christian theology has God as "present" throughout the universe. so God is both transcendent and immanent.now, thisview is not without metaphysical problems. this is not the place to explore that.   

Hinduism part 2

So we have extreme asceticism: Hindu wanderers were known as Munis (the silent ones). From the Munis developed the Sanyasis and the entire complex of wandering mendicants. 

A different homelessness: The Munis choose a homeless life, without wife, children or possessions of any sort, except robe, staff, begging bowl and drinking cup. These wondering saints are destitute yet, honored by most. What is the purpose of asceticism?  It brings human nature closer to a spiritual disengagement from life, but also it becomes a way to understand the limits of the body-experience before the physical phase of the death experience is upon oneself.

The Aryan Component: The Aryans invaded the subcontinent shortly after 2000 B.C. They came from the north and settled in the Hindu Valley (where five tributary rivers flow from the lower Himalayan regions). Later, around 1200 B.C. the Aryans moved to the central Ganges region (between the Himalaya Mountains and the Ganges River). They bring with them some interesting ideas:

Yajna (sacrifice): This worship through sacrifice is characteristic of the Aryan people in the early period. The most common sacrifice is the drinking of soma (a fermented drink). There was also the horse sacrifice, an elaborate ritual which took years to perform and required a large number of priests. The transition from sacrificial act to ontological absolute happens because the sacrifice was considered the dynamic whereby the entire cosmic-human order was sustained in existence. 

Atman/Brahman: Inner self of all things, supreme reality. Both designate the final reality, the inner support of beings, the One behind multiplicity. "Thou art that" means that the deepest subjective reality is identical with the absolute manifested objectively in the world without.

The Union of Traditions: Maya: The term refers to the creative power of Brahman, came later to mean the insubstantial nature of the visible world, a phenomenal world which is "unreal"; (the appearance of things).

Samsara: The world conceived as a constant endless, cyclic, process of change, of birth and death and rebirth. At the time of death,one form gives way to another form according to a process designated as reincarnation.Another body of the human, subhuman, or suprahuman succeeds the dissolution of the body.

Ineffability: The sublime character of Brahman the ultimate truth, which cannot be understood in any adequate manner. In the Kena Upanishad it's represented as "unthinkable form... not understood by those who understand it and understood by those who do not understand it."

Karma: The law of moral causality. Every deed, good or evil, has an inevitable consequence leading either toward final release from the birth death cycle, or toward further immersion in the painful cycle of unending change. The law of Karma is known as sowing and reaping. Some point to the fatalism involved in the notion of Karma. Others rejoin that a person is always free to perform deeds that will lead to salvation or a least to an improved state of existence.

Moksha: Salvation by union with Brahman. Salvation meant a liberation from the confining, limiting world of time and an emergence into the more expansive world of the eternal and infinite. It means the extinction of phenomenal existence and absorption into Brahman.

Bhakti: Intimate devotion to a personal deity. In centuries before Christianism, Hinduisn developed an amazing awareness that the supreme way of salvation is through the love of God.

let's get to know some of the gods

One of the principal Vedic deities was Indra, the god of war and thunder; nearly one quarter of the Vedic hymns are dedicated to him. A great warrior, a symbol of courage and strength. Gossip: Indra is as quick as the wind and carries a hook, sword, conch, noose, a rainbow and the much feared magic weapon Vaijra. His kingdom is situated near Mt. Meru and Indra's love for Soma is legendary.

Varuna, the sky god who maintains cosmic order and protects moral action. He is shown as a fair-complexioned man riding a monster fish called Makara, which has the head and legs of an antelope. He may have two to four hands and in one of his right hands he carries a noose. 

Mitra, the sun god who stimulates life and brings prosperity. Sometimes Mitra & Varuna are combined into one god: Mitra/Varuna. Mitra has four arms, and comes with the sun and a chariot.

Rudra, (Shiva) the god of violence, destruction, disease, and death.  You know him because he has a Trident in the right lower arm, with a crescent moon on his head. He has aid to be fair like camphor or like an ice clad mountain. He has fire and Damaru and Mala or a kind of weapon. He wears five serpents as ornaments and a garland of skulls. He presses with his feet the demon Muyalaka, a dwarf holding a cobra. He always faces south.

Soma, (Chandra) the god of the moon, the god of the intoxicating juices consumed in ritual.

the art of war, what war?

The Art of War is the most widely read military classic in human history.

People think that TAOW is a manual on how to outsmart one's opponent, so that physical battle becomes superfluous. As such, it has found application as a training guide for many competitive endeavors that do not involve actual combat.

I'd like to present a different view. Self-war. It's called dialectics! 
_________________

Chapter 1 

*General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline.

*Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints. Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe.

*If they have advantage, entice them; if they are confused, take them, if they are substantial, prepare for them, if they are strong, avoid them, if they are angry, disturb them, if they are humble, make them haughty, if they are relaxed, toil them, if they are united, separate them.

*When it comes to rules and regulations, everyone, high and low, should be treated alike.

*Without deception you cannot carry out strategy, without strategy you cannot control the opponent.

*Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages.
 
*Therefore, if able, appear unable, if active, appear not active, if near, appear far, if far, appear near. When strong, appear weak. Brave, appear fearful. Orderly, appear chaotic. Full, appear empty. Wise, appear foolish. Advancing, appear to retreat. Taking, appear to leave. In one place, appear to be in another.

Chapter 2
 
*When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.
 
*When doing battle, seek a quick victory. A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

*The important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistence.

Chapter 3
 
*Perceiving a victory when it is perceived by all is not the highest excellence.
 
*In ancient times, those skilled in warfare make themselves invincible and then wait for the enemy to become vulnerable.

*Being invincible depends on oneself, but the enemy becoming vulnerable depends on himself. 

Chapter 4
 
*One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking.

*Complete victory is when the army does not fight, the city is not besieged, the destruction does not go on long, but in each case, the enemy is overcome by strategy.
 
Chapter 5
 
*Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack.

*Disorder coming from order is a matter of organization, fear coming from courage is a matter of force, weakness coming from strength is a matter of formation.

*The rules of the military are five: measurement, assessment, calculation, comparison and victory.

*Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery.

*If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.

*If he prepares to defend many places, then the forces will be few in number.

*Therefore, it advances like the wind; it marches like the forest; it invades and plunders like fire; it stands like the mountain; it is formless like the dark; it strikes like thunder.

Chapter 6
 
* Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

*Calculate the situation, and then move. Those who know the principles of the circuitous and direct will be victorious. This is armed struggle.
 
*In armed struggle, the difficulty is turning the circuitous into the direct, and turning adversity into advantage.

Chapter 7
 
*Near, wait for the distant; rested, wait for the fatigued; full, wait for the hungry. This is the way to manage strength.

*Do not do battle with well-ordered flags; do not do battle with well-regulated formations. This is the way to manage adaptation.

Chapter 8


*He who is quick tempered can be insulted. He who is cowardly can be captured.

*So the principles of warfare are: Do not depend on the enemy not coming, but depend on our readiness against him. Do not depend on the enemy not attacking, but depend on our position that cannot be attacked.

*Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations; contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.

*There are routes not to be taken; there are armies not to be attacked; there are walled cities not to be besieged; there are grounds not to be penetrated; there are commands not to be obeyed.

Chapter 9
 
*If the enemy is close and remains quiet, he occupies a natural stronghold.

*If the enemy is far away and challenges you to do battle, he wants you to advance, because he occupies level ground that is to his advantage.

*If he gives out rewards frequently, he is running out of resources.

*If he speaks humbly, but increases warfare readiness, he will advance.

*If he speaks apologetically, he needs a rest.

Chapter 10
 
*If I know the enemy can be attacked, and know the troops can attack, but do not know the ground in battle, my victory is half.

*If it is not advantageous to advance or for the enemy to advance, it is called stalemated. For stalemated ground, though the enemy offers you advantage, do not advance. Withdraw.

Chapter 11
 
*Attack what he values most.

*Give your troops tasks, but do not reveal them your plans.

*One who does not know the mountains and forests, gorges and defiles, swamps and wetlands cannot advance the army. One who does not use local guides cannot take advantage of the ground.

Dharma and Yajna

On Tuesday, (in passing), we touched upon the idea of dharma: Doing what must be done (not meaning acting like an automaton, which would be an example of "inaction"). One can think of dharma the way Epictetus defines as arete "doing the best I can at all times."

Some confuse dharma with anomie or passivity (expecting whatever comes). That's wrong. Dharma means pursuing our duty diligently, intensely. Which duty? The milieu we've inherited (family, commitments, our genes, etc). 

One can see "doing" as sacrifice (yajna), that is, turning upside-down all received notions of economic exchange. We touched upon this idea in our Tuesday class when we discussed ascetism as a possible manifestation of self-control.

Yajna is a form of sovereignty. The old existentialist metaphor of devenir.

Why? In a way, we’re born again every time we choose ourselves. Self-rule is a sign of inner development. The idea of detaching oneself from the fruits of one’s action may seem a bit counterintuitive, particularly in the West.

Could I run a race and “win” it for its own sake? The received notion of victory is defined as he or she who gets to finish line first. Yet, Krishna admits that one can win no matter the outcome. This -according to the Gita- is true action. Surely it’s difficult. It takes discipline (techne). In our post-Capitalist epoch we’re often caught up in a means-to-ends cycle. Yet, with discipline, this idea of detachment is achievable.

Gandhi's paralogical logic of ahimsa (a selection)

What follows is a selection from Gandhi on Non-violence.

1- Ahimsa means a steady progress with discipline.

2-  The power of the satyagrahi is greater than if he were violent.

3- There is no defeat in a-himsa.

4- In a-himsa the bravery consists in taking the brunt, not in killing.

5- The satyagrahi should never have any hatred toward his opponent... must be prepared to suffer until the end.

6- ...truth never jimsa a cause that is just.

7- A satyagrahi is never vindictive. He believes not in destruction but in conversion.

8- A-himsa presupposes the ability to strike.

9- ...injustice must be resisted. A-himsa is better, but where is does not come naturally jimsa is both necessary and honorable.

10- So long as one retains one's sword, one has not attain complete fearlessness.

11- A-himsa is impossible without self-purification.

12- A weak man is just by accident. A strong satyagrahi is unjust by accident.

13- A satyagrahi is dead to his body even before his enemy attempts to kill him, i.e. he is free from attachment to his body and only lives in the victory of his soul.

14- A non-violent revolution is not a program for a seizure of power, it's a program of transformation of relationships ending in a peaceful transfer of power.

15- No man has been able to describe God fully. The same goes for ahimsa.

16- Man as animal is violent but as spirit is non-violent. The moment he awakes to the spirit he cannot be violent.

17- It's better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts than to put the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent. (impotent = no reaction)

18- If we remain non-violent, hatred will die, as everything does, from disuse.

19- Ahimsa cannot be preached. It needs to be practiced.

20- Ahimsa succeeds only if one has faith.

21- Ahimsa is the supreme law.

22- Ahimsa is the only true force in life.

23- If one has pride & egoism there is no ahimsa. Ahimsa is impossible without self-control.

___________
All excerpts taken from Ghandi on Non-Violence, New Directions Paper book (New York, 1965)

my answers to some of your comments about the gita

as usual, i need to find a better space of reflection. here it goes:

1- i agree with specific points made by veronica, lars, geoffrey, ninie and carolina. for them the truth is sort of "already inside." the words in the gita just propitiate a rediscovery. valerie took the discussion home when she talked about our dharma (duty) to engage action and stop dithering.
martin's point of action "in the moment" rings true. the essence of bushido is to die everyday. knowing this "readiness" in action is the essence of dharma.

2- regarding jose's point about the gita advocating moral relativism:

if relativism means that there's no right and wrong (it's all relative), or that right and wrong is relative to history, culture, self, etc, this is NOT what YOGA stipulates. the three yogas: bhakti, karma and jnana refer to a clear path of righteousness, i.e., thinking, living and knowing the good. a path surprisingly close (save the immense meditation component in YOGA) to aristotle's idea of arete. in this realm there is a clear right and wrong. as you know the regulation principle is ahimsa.

it's here that manny was referring to this "getting better" without reaching a limit (of perfection?). if i understood correctly he saw this "getting better" as a tension. why? the move is one of gradual improvement. how could one become the best one can be without the tribulations of change?

krishna's point is a metaphor for action (the sort that becomes "sovereign" by taking one's action off the economy of means-to-end). to vinicious i'd say: there is nothing utilitarian in the path of action put forth in the gita.

what's confusing is krishna's counsel to fight now, justified with reasons as high and supervenient as the ONE itself. but take the perspective of BRAHMAN for a second:  is there right and wrong in this heights of causation?  as more and more layers of history are added we literally witness how becoming "becomes." up there is just undifferentiated oneness. at the level of BRAHMAN, predator and prey are the same. how else can you explain ONEness with words?

3- fabio's interesting twist of krishna as "evil man whispering" reminds me of descartes' evil genius (malin génie) in his Méditations sur la philosophie (a very readable book in french by the way). i take the point because it makes for a great discussion.

surprise: the devil doesn't have to come back from gehenna. veronica's point is that evil dwells within oneself!

first outside: how do we deal with an external malin génie? well, the world is full of them: from wall street, to politicians, to religious leaders. from misguided parents, to pseudo friends, to stupid teachers. in fact, to really problematize fabio's point we'd have to factor the possibility that the evil genius is no genius. if by "genius" one has an edge, then misleading me just "for the sport" is as ignorant as me buying into it. there must be a better "genius" than that. the devil feels victorious to the degree that he really persuades me. so, convincing takes two.

keep in mind: ignorance is a two way street.

descartes' genius is worthy of his name because he plays for the sake of truth (truly on the other side). he knows what he believes. he also wants me to believe a lie. 

is arjuna that naïve? i advance three possibilities?

1- arjuna pretends to argue, i.e, "play along" and try to "fool" the genius (i.e., he's not trying to find out truth, but to argue as a devil's advocate). does arjuna really cares for truth?

2- arjuna argues in good faith until either he or krishna "win." let's call this option "socrates' hope."

the third one is weird, but here is goes,

3- arjuna inadvertently fools himself by fooling the genius. here they both lose: krishna, because he's not appearing "as good" anymore (how could he, if arjuna is not falling for his "angel of light" routine? remember, this is all a matter of perception!), arjuna, because he forfeits the opportunity to extract a formidable lesson, winning the truth from the devil himself! this is more than dr. faustus ever bargained for.

now let's go inside: arjuna knows what has to be done. he only needs a push, this is what we call a volition. but the reason buttressing the volition needs to be argued successfully. that's why philosophy has been presented as midwife for truth, what socrates called maieutics.

can one lie to oneself? indeed, this is the "bad faith" (la mauvaise foi) which sartre defined as "a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general". why?

according to sartre, the liar, in order to complete his task, must maintain complete lucidity about some truth that he possesses. one cannot lie without possessing some personal truth, and lying is different than simply being in error.

(in case you want to talk, say it here. comments are open). 

thanks for the company

phi 2070 was nice. lots of things said, broody exchanges, passionate discussions, foolish moments, possible future friendships,

thanks.

Topics for the final exam

The topics for the final (tuesday, december 18 @ 12:40pm) are:

Zen techniques
Wu wei
Confucianism
Taoism

the exam will have the same format than last test. i.e., fill in the blanks for main terms or concepts. the essay question for the final will be to write a page about your favorite theme from within taoism and zen. 

ryokan and the art of poetry

Chinese poems

Walking beside a clear running river, I come to a farmhouse.
The evening chill has given way to the warmth of the
morning sun.
Sparrows gather in a bamboo grove, voices fluttering
here and there.
I meet the old farmer returning to his home;
He greets me like a long-lost friend.
At his cottage, the farmer's wife heats sakè
While we eat freshly picked vegetables and chat.
Together, gloriously drunk, we no longer know
The meaning of unhappiness.

Yesterday I went to town begging food from east to west.
My shoulders are getting thinner and I cannot recall the
last time I had a heavy rice sack.
The thick frost is a continual reminder of my thin robe.
My old friends, where have they gone?
Even new faces are few.
As I walk toward the deserted summer pavilion,
Nothing but the wind of late autumn blowing through
the pines and oaks.

Autum night -- unable to sleep, I leave my tiny cottage.
Fall insects cry under the rocks, and
The cold branches are sparsely covered.
Far away, from deep in the valley, the sound of water.
The moon rises slowly over the highest peak;
I stand there quietly for a long time and
My robe becomes moist with dew.

Returning to my hermitage after filling my rice bowl,
Now only the gentle glow of twilight.
Surrounded by mountain peaks and thinly scattered leaves;
In the forest a winter crow flies.

My life may appear melancholy,
But traveling through this world
I have entrusted myself to Heaven.
In my sack, three sho of rice;
By the hearth, a bundle of firewood.
If someone asks what is the mark of enlightenment
or illusion,

I cannot say -- wealth and honor are nothing but dust.
As the evening rain falls I sit in my hermitage
And stretch out both feet in answer.

The Long Winter Night: 3 poems 

The long winter night! The long winter night seems endless;
When will it be day?
No flame in the lamp nor charcoal in the fireplace;
Lying in bed, listening to the sound of freezing rain.

To an old man, dreams come easy;
I let my thoughts drift.
The room is empty and both the sakè and the oil are used up --
The long winter night.

When I was a boy studying in an empty hall,
Over and over I had to fill the lamp with oil.
Even now, that task is disagreeable --
The long winter night.

Green mountains front and back,
White clouds east and west.
Even if I met a fellow traveler,
No news could I give him.

Deep in the mountains at night, alone in my hermitage,
I listen to the plaintive sound of rain and snow.
A monkey cries on top of a mountain;
The sound of the valley river has faded away.
A light flickers in front of the window;
On the desk, the water in the inkstone has dried.
Unable to sleep all night,
I prepare ink and brush, and write this poem.

Winter -- in the eleventh month
Snow falls thick and fast.
A thousand mountains, one color.
Men of the world passing this way are few.
Dense grass conceals the door.
All night in silence, a few woodchips burn slowly
As I read the poems of the ancients.

Loneliness: spring has already passed.
Silence: I close the gate.
From heaven, darkness; the wisteria arbor is no longer
visible.  The stairway is overgrown with herbs
And the rice bag hangs from the fence.
Deep stillness, long isolated from the world.
All night the hototogisu cries.

Immediateness

According to Zen intellectualizations, concepts, even language itself are inadequate for expressing our experience as it is experienced.

We go through life thinking that our words and ideas mirror what we experience, but repeatedly we discover that the distinctions taken to be true are mental constructs. In verbalizing something, we may have a lingering sense of having compromised part of our experience, but we continue to devise new categories, new names for new things, more distinctions when a moment before there were no distinctions.

The goal of Zen training is to break down our dependence on categories that interfere with the directness and immediacy of experience, but this does not mean that thought stops altogether.

The Zen student is interested in preserving immediacy, but the myriad forms of life situations present a baffling assortment of possibilities to which one must respond.

Thought is effective only when it arises spontaneously out of a problematic situation.

which war? mine!

atRifF

what is war? "a condition of active antagonism."

antagonism? the "condition of being an opposing principle, force, or factor."

as opposed to what? which force? to be is to continually wage a battle with opposing instincts within oneself. a dynamic conflict of domination and subordination. to be means taking sides against oneself.

with this premise of "internal opposition" i'd like to probe an ancient taoist text, the art of war.
let's backtrack to philosopher f. nietzsche, who speaks a constant "wrestling of opposite forces." reality for nietzsche, is a flux of contradictions. an authentic individual must not only acknowledge this fact, but seek to promote similar oppositions within himself:

(...) a given quality contends against itself and separates into opposites; everlastingly these opposites seek to reunite. odinary people fancy they see something rigid, complete and permanent. in truth, however, light and dark, bitter and sweet are attached to each other and interlocked at any given moment like wrestlers of whom sometimes the one, sometimes the other is on top. (PTAG, 5)

a wrestling act. here's another one: "one is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions; one remains young only on condition the soul does not relax, does not long for peace." (TI, morality as antinature, 3)

this nietszchean auto-poesis (the making of oneself) is fundamental to overcome the stagnation posed by self-satisfaction, which paradoxically is something we all seek.  change means (inner) conflict engendered by opposites (friend, enemy, self). authentic self is he/she who is determined by this intensity of self-oppositions.

let's not beat around the bush. we can now entertain the opening words in the art of war:

1. military action is important. it's the ground of death and life... so it is imperative to examine it.

how can there be a "military" of oneself?

military relates to armed forces. soldiers! what's a soldier? one who actively serves a cause. which?

one, any, whether event or condition in which one is responsible for an action or result. 

i can see myself as a soldier on my way to battle with myself in an unforeseen event. any situation is in principle a pure beginning. here we must accept the uncertainty principle: everything begins in confusion and obscurity. the emergence of clarity is the result of this internal wrestling which leads to never-ending clarification. am i not responsible for this most significant cause? is is not mine? is it not my duty to fight? (think of the literal? non- literal? meaning of the b. gita).  

is this the end?

(...) he who has overcome his passions has entered into possession of the most fertile ground … to sow the seeds of good spiritual works in the soil of the subdued passions is then the immediate urgent task. the overcoming itself is only a means, not a goal; if it is not so viewed, all kinds of weeds and devilish nonsense will quickly spring up in this rich soil now unoccupied, and soon there will be more rank confusion than there ever was before. (WS, 53)

a new battle will have to be fought. and why not? 

enough said.

i'm closing this post next wednesday at 11pm.   

The Chuang Tzu

Excerpts from The Chuang Tzu.

do your work and step back (post for comment)

Thomas Bayrle, Maxwell Kaffee, Oil on canvas (1967).

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.- Tao Te Ching

atRifF

i take thomas bayrle Maxwell Kaffee (above) as a metaphor for the paradox of the one and the multiple. we find it again in kenyan artist ingrid mwuangi's If:

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things. (vers. 42)¹

Ingrid Mwuangi, If, digital c-prints mounted on aluminum (2001).

The Tao is like a well:

used but never used up.

It is like the eternal void:

filled with infinite possibilities. (vers. 4)

according to the tao te ching, our will to fix things, to render reality "coherent," could paradoxically take us into unexpected detours.

when should we let things just be?

If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,  (vers. 16)

the answer is near. one just have to take the chance:

 Since before time and space were,
the Tao is.
It is beyond is and is not.
How do I know this is true?
I look inside myself and see. (vers. 21)

we don't see our will as being impeded by anything other than our desire to act. in the big realm of overall causation, our will is not the only mover, but one amongst hundreds of millions of other intersecting wills. seldom we stop to ponder our volition as an infinitesimal fraction of an overall sum of (unknown) wills in the here and now, plus the already existing chain/reactions which our time/space.

how to see one's will vis-a-vis this higher order of will/differentials? what's the relative limit between one's doing and one doing too much? and viceversa, how much of our lives simply end up -unknowingly- "happening" to us?
 

ray bradbury, A Sound of Thunder, edition of collier's magazine (june 1952).

just as in bradbury's A Sound of Thunder,² imagine how much of our planet's future is -and is not- in our hands right now.

The Tao is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable.

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand. ( vers. 5)

on the positive side, think of serendipity in science, randomness in quantum mechanics and aleatoricism in music. ³

Marco Fusinato, Mass Black Implosion, ink on archival facsimile of score (2007).

on the negative side, think of black swans, popper's historicist fallacy and uneventful events. which brings us back to the mismatch of essence/appearance. of course, the question that we need to answer is how can we tell the difference of the ONEw32w2?

Look, and it can't be seen.

Listen, and it can't be heard.

Reach, and it can't be grasped. (vers. 14)

the answer to the problem is not that simple, because there is no single unequivocal course of action. it's at this point that jazz can help. when musicians improvise, they are also part of a center of energy given by the whole ensemble. if one sees it synchronically (as if you could make a slice in the music sequence) the musicians seem to solo, if one sees it diachronically, it plays as a perfectly fit sequence. the success of the solo depends precisely of this give-and-take between part and whole and vice-versa. this is known as "groove."⁴ 

as in jazz, taoism offers different solutions to a given problem. this doesn't mean that all solutions are the same. just as there are good and bad improvisations, there are good and bad solutions to a given problem.

tao is plural, it offers diverse interpretations. why? think of this question: is the Big Dipper made by nature? philosopher nelson goodman thinks not: a constellation is a "version," i.e., a construction that picks some stars from others. the same with "star," which is a version that "picks" (configures) stars from other celestial bodies.⁵

Lecia Dole-Recio, Untitled, paper, vellum, tape and gouache (2003).

goodman explains:

Truth of statements,rightness of descriptions, representations, exemplifications, expressions,... is primarily a matter of fit, fit to what is referred to in one way, or other renderings, or modes and manners of organization.⁶

in our quest/struggle with reality, we keep building construction upon construction (human endeavor in science, politics and the arts, reflects this dynamic). what comes first in Ochoa's Collapsed? hint: the concrete wall is the future event of the aggregate of rock, sand and water. you see the cause, then you see the effect, but never at once. art does the trick! 

Ruben Ochoa, Collapsed, Concrete, steel, burlap, wood, dirt (2009).

at some point we discussed the apparent riddle of the Tao Te Ching, which brings forth the idea "speaking/not speaking" in zen, which we'll go into detail pretty soon. the Chuang Tzu helps: "if tao is made clear (by words), it is not tao. if words are argumentative, they do not reach the point."

yeah, every now and then we just have to let go and shut up. at that point one really but briefly understands the value of letting words flush down into the word/sewer.

Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity. (vers 56)

  
tao listens to silence. composer & buddhist john cage puts is beautifully: "every something is an echo of nothing."

let's pay attention to tao's subtle groove:  

If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up. (vers 22)

in our reading tuesday, we commented an important (and often glossed over) element in taoism: humor. now chuang tzu counsels: "the general idea is to show the happy excursion, the enjoyment in the way of inaction and self-enjoyment." (Chuang Tzu, A Happy Excursion)

no one fits this metaphor better than a child. we must try to bring back our lost innocence and sense of wonderment. there is something to be said for a child's natural ability to take in the world without any prejudice. unfortunately, growing up means repressing this ability so that the adult becomes an entrenchment of hardened stereotypes. meanwhile, our ability for enjoyment gets regimented and instrumentalized.

"having fun" -as we usually use the word nowadays- carries this sense of being entertained, which in our post-capitalist society is exactly the opposite of true fun, the equivalent of forfeiting our curiosity by domesticating ourselves into vacuous, purposeless compliance.

against this disposition we must present tao's flexible, contrarian, comical, side. tao's flexibility avoids the pitfalls of intellectual constipation:
 

Proud beyond measure,

you come to your knees:

Do enough without vieing,

Be living, not dying.

now the fool comes back. he's been with us this semester. chuang tzu advises: a man who knows he is a fool is not a great fool (how close to this). as you'll see, the fool becomes an distinguished character in zen.

there is a caveat though, if we unproblematically go for enjoyment, not only because, to begin with, the capitalist imperative "enjoy yourself" can castrate the true feeling we seek, but because, as sarah kay points out, enjoyment can be a double-edge sword: "enjoy-meant," and then meaning displaces the being.⁷

said differently, desire may end up killing the true feeling. i think this is what philosopher simon critchley has in mind when he cites a telling passage from beckett's Watt:

The bitter the hollow and -haw, haw!- the mirthless. The bitter laugh laughs at that which is not good, it is the ethics laugh. The hollow laugh laughs at that which is not true, it is the intellectual laugh. Not good! Not true! Well, well. But the mirthless laugh is the dianoetic laugh, down the snout - haw!- so. It is the laugh of laughs, the risus purus, the laugh laughing at the laugh, the beholding, the saluting of the highest joke, in a word the laugh that laughs -silence please- at that which is unhappy. ⁸

risus purus that may work as an antidote to the negative attitudes of our political comedy: anal-retentiveness, social hostility, impetuous rage and self-importance.

the tao of self-knowledge is personal, contrarian & paradoxical!

Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health. (vers. 71)

i am closing this post wednesday november 21 

________________
¹ taken from Tao Te Ching, translated by s. mitchell.  ² in his short story A Sound of Thunder, ray bradbury imagines the impact of the so-called butterfly effect:

Maybe Time can't be changed by us. Or maybe it can be changed only in little subtle ways. A dead mouse here makes an insect imbalance there, a population disproportion later, a bad harvest further on, a depression, mass starvation, and finally, a change in social temperament in far-flung countries. Something much more subtle, like that. Perhaps only a soft breath, a whisper, a hair, pollen on the air, such a slight, slight change that unless you looked close you wouldn't see it. Who knows? Who really can say he knows? We don’t know. We’re guessing. But until we do know for certain whether our messing around in Time can make a big roar or a little rustle in history, we’re being careful.

³ serendipity is the finding of something valuable without its being specifically sought. in general, activities and skills that can function in parallel may interact in unplanned and unforeseen ways. professor Jeffrey McKee argues that some of the most important forces of human evolution (the roles of which have been largely neglected) are chance, coincidence, and chaos. according to McKee one cannot understand how humans evolved without taking these three factors into account. see, The riddled chain: Chance, coincidence, and chaos in human evolution (Rutgers University Press, 2000). ⁴"when jazz is really grooving -whether it's a solo pianist, a quartet, or a big band -there is indeed an unmistakable feeling of buoyancy and lift (...) relaxed intensity is the key." Johnny King, What Jazz Is: An Insider's Guide to Understanding and Listening to Jazz (Walker: 1997) p. 24. ⁵ Hilary Putnam, Renewing Philosophy, (Cambridge, 1992), p. 115. ⁶Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking, (Hackett Publishing, 1978).  ⁷Sarah Kay, Zizek: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, 2003), p. 162.  ⁸ Simon Critchley, Infinitely Demanding, (Verso, 2007), p. 82

Tao Te Ching

for the sake of simplicity, i found this translation by s mitchell.