But now that researchers have been analyzing those stray thoughts,
they’ve found daydreaming to be remarkably common — and often quite
useful. A wandering mind can protect you from immediate perils and keep
you on course toward long-term goals. Sometimes daydreaming is
counterproductive, but sometimes it fosters creativity and helps you
solve problems.
This brought to mind the first chapter of Zhuangzi - 逍遙遊 - which Watson translates as "Free and Easy Wandering," and Hinton renders as ""Wandering Boundless and Free." A passage from chapter three gets at the sensibility:
Just let your mind wander along
in the drift of things. Trust yourself to what is beyond you - let it
be the nurturing center. Then you've made it. In the midst of all
this, is there really any response? Nothing can compare to simply
living out your inevitable nature. And there's nothing more
difficult....(56)
Notice that, unlike the psychologists, Zhuangzi does not worry about utility. He would have a hard time defining "counterproductive," unless, of course, it meant taking one away from the natural unfolding of Way. Mind wandering, for him, is not a matter of useful or useless, it is, in itself, simply reflective of human experience more generally. We like to think that we are in control of our lives, but, in fact, we are wandering through time, subject to all sorts of unforeseen and unexpected forces and turns of fate. And if we recognize that "inevitable nature" we can then come to "free and easy wandering"....
A piece I wrote for the Kyoto Journal just came out, and it is available on-line here. It is based on some posts I did here a couple of years ago, with some nice pictures added...
The blog has been quiet of late because I was on a bit of a holiday. My wife and I took our daughter and her cousin to the new Harry Potter theme park at Universal Studios in Florida. It was strange, exhilarating, hot, intriguing, repulsive...all at the same time. Not the way I would want to spend too much time, but worth a couple of days.
Over the course of our three days there I noticed the marketing strategies (rather hard not to since everything was for sale). The various and sundry rides and shows and simulacra are referred to as "attractions." They are designed to draw us in, to distract us, to capture our imagination, if only for short moments. They are meant to be attractive. Not all of them were. Indeed, the loud music and garish colors were, at times, off-putting - but maybe that is just me: a detached, sometimes aloof, academic. In any event, I found myself thinking that the more accurate term (though one less effective in terms of marketing) would be "diversions." The entire theme park industry - and indeed the overwhelming portion of cultural production more generally - is made to divert us, to shift our thoughts away from our failings, our short-comings, our mortality.It brought Pascal's Pensees to mind (which I haven't looked at since college). He has much to say about diversion, including:
143. Diversion. -- Men are entrusted from infancy with the care of their honour, their property, their friends, and even with the
property and the honour of their friends. They are overwhelmed with business, with the study of languages, and with physical exercise; and they are made to understand that they cannot be happy unless their health, their honour, their fortune and that of their friends be in good condition, and that a single thing wanting will make them unhappy. Thus they are given cares and business which make them bustle about from break of day. It is, you will exclaim, a strange way to make them happy! What more could be done to make them miserable?- Indeed! what could be done? We should only have to relieve them from all these cares; for then they would see themselves: they would reflect on what they are, whence they came, whither they go, and thus we cannot employ and divert them too much. And this is why, after having given them so much business, we advise them, if they have some time for relaxation, to employ it in amusement, in play, and to
be always fully occupied.
How hollow and full of ribaldry is the heart of man!
For Pascal, work and social life are as much diversion as are amusements (like theme parks). For him, a mindful solitude that allows for reflection upon God is the antidote to diversions of all sorts. Even though Zhuangzi does not share his religiosity, I couldn't help but sense a certain similarity between the above passage and this one from Zhuangzi:
Once we happen into the form of
this body, we cannot forget it. And so
it is that we wait out the end.
Grappling and tangling with things, we rush headlong toward the end, and
there’s no stopping it. It’s sad, isn’t
it? We slave our lives away and never get anywhere, work ourselves ragged and
never find our way home. How could it be
anything but sorrow? People can talk
about never dying, but what good is that?
This form we have soon becomes others, and the mind vanishes with
it. How could it be called anything but
great sorrow? Life is total
confusion. Or is it that I’m the only
one who’s confused? (20)
Pascal's ribaldry is Zhuangzi's confusion....
Don't get me wrong. I had fun at the diversion park. There were a couple of wild roller coasters - Dragon Challenge and Incredible Hulk. These really do take you to a different physical place, even if only for a couple of minutes. If there were a Taoist reference here I would say they force you to be in the moment... And the Harry Potter Forbidden Journey ride was also fun. Not to be missed is the Simpson's Ride, which was a satire of amusement park rides, something like a meta-theme park....
But for all of the fun, I kept coming back to Pascal:
171. Misery. -- The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is
this which principally hinders us from reflecting upon ourselves and
which makes us insensibly ruin ourselves. Without this we should be in
a state of weariness, and this weariness would spur us to seek a
more solid means of escaping from it. But diversion amuses us, and
leads us unconsciously to death.
He's probably right, but let me revise his sentiment just a bit, with all due respect to Emily Dickinson: too much diversion will certainly ruin us, but a little madness in the Spring, a ride or two on a crazy roller coaster, is wholesome even for the king...
I've watched a couple of World Cup matches (US/England; Brazil/NK; some of Spain/Switzerland) and Sun Tzu has come to mind....
On first thought, it is a bit difficult to apply Sun Tzu to soccer (football...). The battle situations that he anticipates are more fluid than a sporting competition. In soccer there is a very specific, unchanging objective: to score goals (or, conversely, to keep the adversary from scoring goals). Everyone always knows that the prime objective is. Thus, it is hard to see how this Sun Tzu idea can translate into soccer strategy:
To be certain to take what you attack is to attack a place the enemy does not protect. To be certain to hold what you defend is to defend a place the enemy does not attack.
Therefore, against those skilled in attack, an enemy does not know where to defend; against experts in defense, the enemy does not know where to defend. VI.7,8.
Everyone knows, ultimately, where the attack will come in soccer: it is aimed quite intently on the goal. And everyone knows where the defense will be concentrated - at least in those instances where one team is emphasizing the defense. The field is too restricted, the rules too determinative, to allow for too much in the way of uncertainty about what will be attacked and what will be defended.
But there are Sun Tzu ideas that are more applicable. This passage, for instance:
Anciently, the skillful warriors first made themselves invincible and awaited the enemy's moment of vulnerability.
Invincibility depends on one's self; the enemy's vulnerability on him.
It follows that those skilled in war can make themselves invincible but cannot cause an enemy to be certainly vulnerable.
Therefore, it is said that one may know how to win, but cannot necessarily do so.
Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack.
One defends when his strength is inadequate; he attacks when it is abundant. IV.1-7.
I think this very well captures the Brazil/NK game and the Spain/Switzerland game. The North Koreans and the Swiss clearly understood themselves to be the weaker team in their respective competitions. Their strength was inadequate, so they emphasized defense. In doing so, they were, at the outset, basically conceding an outright victory and were playing for a tie because they had to give up their attack - and, as Sun Tzu notes, the possibility of victory lies in the attack; if you hunker down in search of invincibility you give up the attack, and thus the chance for victory. In such circumstances, not losing takes precedence over winning.
Sun Tzu would thus approve of the NK and Swiss strategies.
Things turned out better for the Swiss because the Spanish made themselves vulnerable. Their relentless and fluid -and, yes, beautiful - attack eventually yielded an opening for the Swiss counter. It was a bit ugly, but it worked. Not so much for the North Koreans. The Brazilians - with their signature beautiful play - maintained sufficient defensive presence (this, after all, has been Dunga's mantra). Personally, i think all of the strum und drang about Brazil losing its panache is overblown. Their interior passing and creativity are still better than any other (and that includes Spain...). Robinho was marvelous. In any event, it was a breakdown in the NK defense, a momentary hesitation by the goalkeeper, that opened the door for the first Brazilian score. NK turned out not to be as invincible as they had hoped.
Here's one last thought. For all of the talk about Brazilian defense, they maintained a relentless attack against NK. Granted, they were the clearly superior team in all facets of the game, so, as Sun Tzu would say, an attacking posture was certainly appropriate. But let's see what happens as we get further into the tournament and Brazil faces tougher teams, such as Portugal. It could be that Dunga is trying to get into the head of the adversary; make them think that Brazil will be hanging back, emphasizing defense. This could encourage the Portuguese to come forward, creating certain vulnerabilities, that can be quickly exploited by the powerful Brazilian attack. Perhaps Dunga is following on of the most famous of Sun Tzu's ideas:
All warfare is based on deception. I.17
Perhaps he is trying to make the adversary believe that Brazil will be concentrating on making itself invincible as a means of inducing the other side into making themselves vulnerable....
Wow. A day after I post about the World Cup, the vagaries of Tao are revealed to the fullest. The English clearly outplayed the US on Saturday but Robert Green the English goalkeeper let through an improbable score that allowed the US to escape with a tie, sparking much consternation across Albion. For me it brought to mind these lines from Zhuangzi:
Joy and anger, sorrow and delight, hope and regret, doubt and ardor,
diffidence and abandon, candor and reserve: it’s all music rising out
of emptiness, mushrooms appearing out of mist. Day and night come and
go, but who knows where it all begins? It is! It just is! If you
understand this day in and day out, you inhabit the very source of it
all.
I haven't blogged on sports lately but the just-begun World Cup has brought athletic competition to mind...
As I have noted in the past, I am a Taoist NY Yankees fan. Some might find that paradoxical (how could a Taoist be a Yankee fan?) to which I would respond, as I think Zhuangzi would: since life is generally paradoxical than any particular paradox is rather normal...
I have less strong affiliations when it comes to soccer (football). In high school I played a bit, mostly to keep in shape for track. The Brazilians have always attracted my attention with their "joga bonito". And some might find that fitting: the Yankee fan pulling for the Brazilians (and I must say I was sorry to hear that the current coach was setting a more defense-oriented strategy, one that might dilute the traditional beauty).
But as a Taoist (or, at least, as someone drawn to Taoist sensibilities) I know that attachments of all sorts, sports teams included, are transient. They merely distract us from the natural unfolding of Way (Tao). What matters is the flow of the game, the players expressing their inherent talents and capacities, the microcosm of Way in the competition: the ups and downs, the brilliant moves and the shocking mistakes, the the unexpected turn of events.
So, I will follow it. I will root for the US over England (which has as much to do with my atavistic Irish identity as anything else). And I will look for those flashes of Brazilian brilliance.
For those interested in the intersection of Confucianism and Christianity, which I have not blogged about recently, let me bring up two posts from the archives.
The big national college entrance exam - the dreaded gaokao - has just finished in China. Danwei has a collection of some of the various essay questions posed in different provinces. As I read through them I thought that one, at least, could be readily answered with a reference to the Daodejing and Zhuangzi. This question, from Jiangxi:
Recovering childhood (找回童年) — "Why do we want to recover
childhood? Because society it too utilitarian, children have too much
pressure, and childhood ends too early. Society needs innocence and
required a return to childhood."
A Daoist-inspired response would start by agreeing that society is too utilitarian - and that is a bad thing; it takes us away from Dao (Way), the natural unfolding of things. And, yes, childhood ends to early. But a Daoist would push further and argue that a return to childhood is necessary because it is the youngest, infants especially, who have not yet been contaminated with the expectations and desires and understandings that obstruct our apprehension of, and adherence to, Dao. We learn to close ourselves off from the spontaneous expression of nature - ziran. We come to believe that we can meaningfully control our lives and fates. It is not just that society needs innocence, but that each of us is, as Zhuangzi says, hurtling toward oblivion:
Once we happen into the form of
this body, we cannot forget it. And so
it is that we wait out the end.
Grappling and tangling with things, we rush headlong toward the end, and
there’s no stopping it. It’s sad, isn’t
it? We slave our lives away and never get anywhere, work ourselves ragged and
never find our way home. How could it be
anything but sorrow? People can talk
about never dying, but what good is that?
This form we have soon becomes others, and the mind vanishes with
it. How could it be called anything but
great sorrow? Life is total
confusion. Or is it that I’m the only
one who’s confused? (20)
We need to return to childhood because of what "childhood" stands for: the unadulterated human experience, without guile or goals, free from societal standards or strictures. And that liberating possibility (I have always thought Zhuangzi was very much about liberation) is captured in section 55 of the Daodejing (Lau translation):
One who possesses virtue in abundance is comparable to a new born babe: Poisonous insects will not sting it;
Ferocious animals will not pounce on it;
Predatory birds will not swoop down on it.
Its bones are weak and its sinews supple yet its hold is firm. It does not know the union of male and female yet its male member will stir:
This is because its virility is at its height.
It howls all day yet does not become hoarse:
This is because its harmony is at its height.
To know harmony is called the constant;
To know the constant is called discernment.
To try to add to one's vitality is called ill-omened;
For the mind to egg on the breath is called violent.
A creature in its prime doing harm to the old
Is known as going against the way.
That which goes against the way will come to an early end.
I have to believe that some students in Jiangxi invoked these passages...
Recent Comments