I have no life and death: I make the tides of my breathing my life and death. I have no divine power: I make honesty my divine power. I have no means: I make understanding my means. I have no magic secrets: I make character my magic secret. I have no body: I make endurance my body. I have no eyes: I make the flash of lightening my eyes. I have no ears: I make sensibility my ears. I have no limbs: I make promptness my limbs. I have no strategy: I make 'unshadowed by thought' my strategy. I have no designs: I make 'seizing opportunity by the forelock' my design. I have no miracles: I make right action my miracle. I have no principals: I make adaptability to all circumstances my principles. I have no tactics: I make emptiness and fullness my tactics. I have no talents: I make ready wit my talent. I have no friends: I make my mind my friend. I have no enemy: I make carelessness my enemy. I have no armour: I make benevolence and righteousness my armour. I have no castle: I make immovable mind my castle. I have no sword: I make absence of self my sword.
Not that a man sees something new as the first one to do so, but that he sees something old, familiar, seen but overlooked by everyone, as though it was new is what distinguishes true originality.
The first discoverer is usually that commonplace and mindless fantasist - chance.
It is as difficult to appropriate an idea as it is to invent one.
"Elsewhere I explored the notion of integrity, the experience of self that lies at its centre and the loss and recapture of that experience - Paradise lost and Paradise regained.
I found that man is brought up to experience himself and the world through a theory or a map that is in crucial respects profoundly misleading.
King among these misapprehensions is the belief that he is the map rather than the experiential terrain on which it is overlaid; for once this assuption is made a person cannot question the map without simultaneously questioning himself.
A threat to the theory becomes a threat to his own survival, if a man sees himself as the theory.
Thus the other fallacies that the map contains becomes insulated from all those aspects of experience that could find them wanting.
They become almost, though happily not quite entirely - beyond question.
The most important of these fallacies concern the self: they project a picture of a man as independant, separate, autonomous, persisting, and as the source or cause of many of his actions. The lead him to see his thought as holding executive power over his behaviour and thus get upset when mental authority seems to be ignored by wayward flesh.
The extent of his intimacy and mutuality with the world beyond his skin is seriously underestimated. Much of himself is denied access to his picture of himself, thus constraining his developement and preventing him sloughing off old skins of habits and belief that are no longer fitting.
Most of the time therefore man is out of sync, out of kilter with his body, his feelings and his circumstances, a fact of which his awareness varies from "not at all" to "acute."
So to point out these errors of judgement, to suggest that there might be room for improvement is not to diminsh man.
To deprive a man of his active and controling self is not to leave him incomplete - ruptued and rudderless, less substantial and less potent, in fact it doesn't make any difference at all to the way he works, for we have only robbed him of an idea, a conceit.
And in the realms of his experience he ends up not poorer but infinitely richer: no longer trapped inside a meatball jousting with a hostile world, but heir to the entire universe.
Not "a stranger and afraid, in a world I never made," but at ease and at home everywhere because he knows himself to be both architect and host.
5 Comments:
Volume XI page XII
I have no life and death:
I make the tides of my breathing my life and death.
I have no divine power:
I make honesty my divine power.
I have no means:
I make understanding my means.
I have no magic secrets:
I make character my magic secret.
I have no body:
I make endurance my body.
I have no eyes:
I make the flash of lightening my eyes.
I have no ears:
I make sensibility my ears.
I have no limbs:
I make promptness my limbs.
I have no strategy:
I make 'unshadowed by thought' my strategy.
I have no designs:
I make 'seizing opportunity by the forelock' my design.
I have no miracles:
I make right action my miracle.
I have no principals:
I make adaptability to all circumstances my principles.
I have no tactics:
I make emptiness and fullness my tactics.
I have no talents:
I make ready wit my talent.
I have no friends:
I make my mind my friend.
I have no enemy:
I make carelessness my enemy.
I have no armour:
I make benevolence and righteousness my armour.
I have no castle:
I make immovable mind my castle.
I have no sword:
I make absence of self my sword.
Volume XII page I
Not that a man sees
something new as the
first one to do so, but
that he sees something
old, familiar, seen but
overlooked by everyone,
as though it was new
is what distinguishes
true originality.
The first discoverer is
usually that commonplace
and mindless fantasist -
chance.
It is as difficult to
appropriate an idea
as it is to invent one.
Volume X page IV
"Elsewhere I explored the notion of integrity,
the experience of self that lies at its centre
and the loss and recapture of that experience -
Paradise lost and Paradise regained.
I found that man is brought up to experience
himself and the world through a theory or a map
that is in crucial respects profoundly misleading.
King among these misapprehensions is the belief
that he is the map rather than the experiential terrain
on which it is overlaid; for once this assuption is
made a person cannot question the map without
simultaneously questioning himself.
A threat to the theory becomes a threat to his own
survival, if a man sees himself as the theory.
Thus the other fallacies that the map contains
becomes insulated from all those aspects of
experience that could find them wanting.
They become almost, though happily not quite
entirely - beyond question.
The most important of these fallacies concern the self:
they project a picture of a man as independant, separate,
autonomous, persisting, and as the source or cause
of many of his actions. The lead him to see his thought
as holding executive power over his behaviour and thus
get upset when mental authority seems to be ignored
by wayward flesh.
The extent of his intimacy and mutuality with
the world beyond his skin is seriously underestimated.
Much of himself is denied access to his picture of
himself, thus constraining his developement and
preventing him sloughing off old skins of habits
and belief that are no longer fitting.
Most of the time therefore man is out of sync,
out of kilter with his body, his feelings and
his circumstances, a fact of which his awareness
varies from "not at all" to "acute."
So to point out these errors of judgement,
to suggest that there might be room for improvement
is not to diminsh man.
To deprive a man of his active and controling self
is not to leave him incomplete - ruptued and rudderless,
less substantial and less potent, in fact it doesn't
make any difference at all to the way he works,
for we have only robbed him of an idea, a conceit.
And in the realms of his experience
he ends up not poorer but infinitely richer:
no longer trapped inside a meatball jousting with
a hostile world, but heir to the entire universe.
Not "a stranger and afraid, in a world I never made,"
but at ease and at home everywhere because
he knows himself to be both architect and host.
"Does a Sage ever argue? Let us see!
Chinese Sage : Lao-tsu said,
"The good man does not argue;
he who argues is not good."
Western Logician : I disagree!
CS: You disagree with what?
WL: With what you said!
CS: And what was that?
WL: That the good man does not argue.
CS: Wrong!
WL: What do you mean "Wrong?"
CS: I never said the good man
does not argue.
WL: Of course you did!
You distinctly said that the good man
does not argue and that he who argues
is not good.
CS: Nope! I merely said that Lao-tsu said that.
WL: Oh, all right! You know what I meant.
CS: Whose being illogical now?
WL: Oh, come of it! Why are you so argumentative?
CS: I am not being argumentative. I'm merely being logical.
Wl: You're hardly being logical. I would say you're being irritatingly
logical.
CS: Now, what kind of logic is that? If I am being irritatingly logical,
t hen a-fortiori I am being logical.
WL: Again you argue! Why are you being so argumentative? After all,
as you said, the good man does not argue.
CS: I didn't say that! I said Lao-tsu said that.
WL: And do you believe it?
CS: Do I believe what? That Lao-tsu said that?
WL: No, no! Do you believe that what Lao-tsu said is true?
CS: Yes.
WL: Oh, then you do believe that a good man does not argue?
CS: Yep!
WL: So why didn't you say so?
CS: Why should I have?
WL: There you go arguing again. You are so incosistent!
CS: How so?
WL: Because you admit that the good man does not argue,
and you go on arguing in complete disregard fof that fact.
CS: I am not being inconsistent. It just so happens that at the moment
I feel more like arguing than being good."
:D yes argument makes great pastimes.
Post a Comment
<< Home