A master of the art of war has said, ‘I do not dare to be the
host (to commence the war); I prefer to be the guest (to act on the
defensive). I do not dare to advance an inch; I prefer to retire a
foot.’ This is called marshalling the ranks where there are no ranks;
baring the arms (to fight) where there are no arms to bare; grasping
the weapon where there is no weapon to grasp; advancing against the
enemy where there is no enemy.
There is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war. To do
that is near losing (the gentleness) which is so precious. Thus it is
that when opposing weapons are (actually) crossed, he who deplores
(the situation) conquers.
~
What I get out of this text is:
Gentleness is a form of self-defense.
Win wars by not causing wars.
Maintain order by staying in the places which have no conflict.
Even a small amount of strife leads to more strife, so it’s better to avoid it completely.
“Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”
Abraham Lincoln
It’s as if we’re programmed to be the aggressors and to be ready to use physical or verbal violence the moment an opponent arises. I agree with what Tao says to an extent, though it simply cannot be applied to many cases. Sometimes aggression is necessary; sometimes we need to attack to defend. Other times, a peaceful solution can be made.
I agree, we can avoid strife to a certain degree, but, depending on what and how much you avoid, chances are something will come back and bite you on the ass.
“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger; but if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.â€
Winston Churchill
A small amount of strife may lead to more strife, though sometimes avoiding that small amount of strife turns it into a threat. The more you avoid it, the larger the threat becomes. I think it is better to use the small amount of strife, when you must, thereby causing more strife to remove the threat. Though it may cause further threats, sometimes it simply must be done. Its almost as if at times, we’re fucked no matter what we do.
Who was it that said, “Walk softly but carry a big stick” ?
I avoid almost everything I can conflict-wise. People see this as a weakness, but it works in your favor. However, if the threat pursues you, the more extreme your reaction, the quicker the resolve, as they once judged you weak. I seen people actually tremble and quiver at the lips, after judging me weak. And all I did was raise a terrific shouting voice, with the aid of a few flailing arms. They never bothered me again.
In conflict, I’ve learned, the trick is to want nothing from people, but give nothing as well.
W.C.
I’ve written some critic of a few other chapters…
The critic is kind of broad…
Not meant as a condemnation, just as exposure of the desires behind the beliefs:
I didn’t fix the spelling yet,
but I’m noting that these ideas are self-contradiction and revenge upon the enemies of the moralist.
This guy seems to think that fresh, un-damaged machines are weakness, and the broken, decrepid machines are strong. This is extravegant rationalization and lies. When you buy a PC new from the store or the factory, it’s like a newborn baby, because it’s empty of data, un-degraded, newly made, etc. Being fresh is not being weak.
The idea of weakness being the highest form of strength – is a perfect example of the twisted and subtle moral-philosophies – making submission more and more appealing with every passing moment.
Where have I seen this kind of thinging before? Hmm!?
“Giving is better then receiving.”
“Being poor is better then being ritch.”
“Life is suffering, but death brings you to a higher state of existence, capable of far more then before. Death frees your spirit from limits.”
Etc.
These are twisted lies, contradicting and subverting the systems of earth and nature as best they can.
Water is not weak. This is only true when it’s applied to versatility, which IS a form of strength. One-dimensional and never-changing persons are like a sheet of glass. Brittle and firm at the same time. Iron can bend itself or break others at the same time. Stupidity is also a form of weakness, which is incredibly harmful.
Out of anything in nature I’ve ever seen, the wasteful stupidity is what I’d call the worst. I don’t care about homosexuality or swearing or apostacy or theft, what I don’t like is when lives, time and resources are squandered. And the only reason why I don’t want humans to be wasteful is because I don’t want humanity to crash.
Maybe a crash would do them good? People tend to only wake up after allot of them are killed by certain things, and even death can be accepted or tolerated. Oh well, I guess humans are naturally most focused on mass production and mass consuption. Quantity before quality.
Most of the time, moralists want the world to be more submissive, so that it’s easier to deal with.
It is a common practice throughout history – for men to [at times] enguage upon propaganda capeigns against their enemies. This is most often what the moralists do. I’ve done this also, sometimes, and I’m not ashamed of what I naturally want. Just remember that the moralists aren’t often speeking truth, so much as they are trying to rally free soldiers for the war of opinion.
I think understand your point of view, though I myself differ in some points on how we have interpreted Tao on this occasion. There may have been ulterior motives for Tao’s writings, but he does make a good case.
To me, what Tao is trying to say on Chapter 76: Its not that weakness is stronger then strength, it’s that weakness and softness is the way of life. If you use weakness or softness to conquer, a peaceful means in other words, then there is no reason to use physical force; and so life prevails. When you use strength, when you use physical force, you must injure severely or kill your enemies, whereby death prevails.
He who relies on the strength of his forces does not, in the end, conquer because thorns spring up upon his path. Hitler is a good example. He used force to conquer and could only go so far before he was defeated. He invited he’s fellers. Conversely, Jesus is an example of using softness and weakness to prevail. He may be dead, but he has over a billion followers two thousand years later. Debatable, of course. [size=59]–He’s message may have been confused and changed over the years, or he may not have existed, etc, etc, but that’s another topic.-[/size]
Chapter 78 I think Tao begins by reinforcing what he said in Chapter 76, using water as some dealing of man as examples of how one will prevail in various ways from using softness and weakness. He seems to end up by saying that nothing is absolute, which in this context, I’m guessing he’s saying its better to be soft and weak [accepting/understanding] rather then too sure of your thoughts. When you’re too sure, you’ll get arguments, when you’re soft and weak; you’ll get conversations and can reason.
Of course, not everyone’s going to be soft and weak, so again, you cannot in reality apply Tao’s thoughts to all occasions. Then again, perhaps you can… and it’s just that we’re too damn stupid to properly do so.
You know, in the end it was probably a Chinese cook-book that some wise-ass translators thought would be funny as hell to release to the western world as philosophy. They’re probably over there, sitting in their sweat-shops right now, laughing at us. Heh.
Thanks for the topic Dan~, was fun… and probably the most civil topic in the religious section for a while.
There are several examples in history of using weakness as a strength; indeed, this concept is vital towards understanding the Mandate.
When the corrupt Zhou Xin imprisoned Wen, it caused many lords to wake up and realize what was truly going on. This made it fairly easy for Wu, Wen’s son, to gain allies and overthrow Zhou Xin. Wen was in a position of weakness, but in his weakness he was far stronger than Zhou Xin in his position of strength.
Or when the Mongols or the Manchus conquered China. Within a generation, they had more-or-less begun to think of themselves as Chinese.
Or the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe. I mean, the US spent billions strengthening their former enemies. And what happened? The US gained some very powerful allies. It worked much better than punishing their enemies, as happened after WWI.
Your interpretations might be a little off the mark. There is a difference in how one sees in the Chinese cosmology from the time Tao Te Ching was written. The reference to so-called ‘submission’ doesn’t mean be weak, but to be thoroughly prepared by understanding and anticipating your enemy. Another way of saying it would be that the perfect offense is a perfect defense. Beyond that, war is seen as sorrow and the victors should treat their victory as a funeral.
Chapter 76 isn’t about “things” That is just metaphor. It is about our thinking and acting out. Rigidity of mind is “my way or the highway”, which most often leads to conflict, and in it’s extreme, war. Rigidity is the companion of death. Softness or flexibilty of mind leads to understanding and compromise, suppleness of mind is the companion of life.
Chpter 78 uses water as metaphor. The distinction being made involves two concepts: the first being tse man-made rules and laws which coerce, and the second is li which is the patterns of natural order. That which is hard (man-made rules) go against the patterns of natural function. That which is soft follows the natural order of things, and like water actively seeks it’s way to the lowest point. The water metaphor carries other complimentary concepts as well, and is referred to in many other chapters as well.
what I find ironic is the reliance on Nietzsche (what with the slave mentality and all), who is Zhuangzi (the most influential Daoist text) with the serial numbers filed off, and the content ever-so-slightly distorted.
Funny, I never really thought about it. But when you look at the exxageration of both to get their point across, it does have a familiar ring… An interesting idea. Better keep this quiet though. You could easily be burned at the Nietzschian stake for this…
I’m looking for a better cite, but I remember a professor of mine mentioning that Nietzsche had access to a translation of the Zhuangzi and it greatly influenced his work.
Compare Zhuangzi’s critique of Christianity to Zhuangzi’s critique of Christianity. Nietzsche’s Madman to Zhuangzi’s madman of Chu. The idea of the morally crippled and certain aspects of the Uebermensch.
