Tag: Richard Feynman

Deconstruction – reading between the lines

Logic always talks about ones and zeros. But when logical, philosophical arguments end up in a paradox we discover a totally new understanding about reality which is neither one nor zero but a spectrum. Jacques Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown using the limitations of language. Deconstruction helps to come out of the duality of any argument by putting relative meaning at the center instead of loyalty towards the signs used to show the meaning.

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy for the better understanding of the reality

Language and its purpose

Questioning is at the core of philosophy. Philosophy’s main pursuit is always to create an understanding about the subject of interest. It provides a way to create a basic and concrete understanding of the subject. It is a way to understand the creation and things that are beyond creation. Philosophy is the process of formalizing any concrete understanding so that a new evolved, more absolute understanding could be built upon that foundation.

The means to create such understandings are languages; it could be any language, of symbols, pictures, sounds, geometries, etc. Language serves as the most important tool to formalize any thought, idea, proof, postulate. So, every component of the language has to mean something to create a bigger meaning; like in speech, every word means something. When I say ‘child’ you will see a human young-ling, when I say ‘apple’ you see a red fruit of that particular shape, and when I am saying apple, you are sure that I am not talking about ‘oranges’, because orange is associated with something different looking ‘fruit’ (some would even think of an iphone when I say apple!). This shows that just like how atoms create molecules thereby the object, in similar sense, words of basic meaning create an expression and thereby some context which shows what we mean when we are saying them together to convey a bigger meaning.

Just like atoms of different elements from the periodic table come together in different permutations and combinations to create variety of compounds and infinite objects rather the whole universe, in the same sense every component of given language carries a value – a meaning which builds a narrative, an expression to create a context, a logical statement; a set of such logical statements together can point to some truth, some fact. If used in smart ways, it can help us to discover the hidden sides of our understanding. That is roughly how science and mathematics work.

But you know what? When we are investigating the boundaries of our understanding, we see that they all end in paradoxes, some self-referential paradoxes. Take for example, Epimenides paradox (the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos) as follows:

Epimenides, a Cretan says, “All Cretans are liars”.

Now what does this convey? Prima facie it feels like all Cretan people are liars, but then you see that person who is saying this is also a Cretan that makes him a liar, so he too is a liar. But if Epimenides himself is liar then what he said is also a lie, meaning that Cretans are not liars rather they are veracious. If Cretan’s are veracious then what Epimenides says is truth meaning that all Cretan’s are liars and this means Epimenides is also a liar. We end up in a loop, a self-referential paradox.

In the end, the sentence does not make sense, logic, the sentence is meaningless.

What happened here?

We used a language medium to create a meaning which helped to create newer understanding but that new understanding led us to bigger confusion, meaninglessness.

Here, I pose a very important question –

if the context of the sentence is meaningless does that mean that the words from which that sentence is made – words which have their own individual identity, their own absolute meaning a context are also absolutely meaningless?

What if we encounter same situation in the philosophical endeavors? as they are the building blocks our overall understanding of the creation and things beyond creation.

This is where the philosophy of deconstruction given by Jacques Derrida comes into light. I will try to explain deconstruction by building on some ideas. (you will see in the end that nothing “absolute” makes any sense or doesn’t even exist. That is also why deconstruction was rejected by many great philosophers but it has a valid point to prove.)

The flow of thought presented hereon is roughly like building an understanding and then challenging that idea because it does not present the best model of how our reality, our consciousness work.

Logocentrism

Western philosophy is based on the foundations of ‘the reason’. The Greek word logos (λόγος) literally means word, discourse, or reason. So, logocentrism considers language as the expression of reality and hence stands as a mediator between conscious and reality.

It is very important to understand that every type of understanding, knowledge building, sharing, communicating activity is associated with language. You need a medium to give a proper structure to what you are thinking and let others comprehend it. Logocentrism focuses on that.

As we have seen already that use of language in certain way could create meaninglessness, self-referential paradox, does that mean language is failing to create better truths? What exactly is happening? If language and logic is paradoxical then the reality which they are explaining must also be paradoxical but that is not the reality we live in (if it would be paradoxical, then reality would not exist, the paradoxical elements would annihilate each other)

This means that there is something lying beyond the territories of language which we are not able to comprehend and translate which could solve this paradox of language.

(Park this first thought in your mind for some time)

Plato’s definition of reality – Platonism and The theory of forms

Plato called out for “essence” of everything that exists. Essence represents that absolute truth which we try to define using ‘forms’, the forms are ideas which are non-physical, timeless, absolute. The forms create reality but they are beyond our grasp because of our physical limitations.

So, building on the theory of forms Platonism believes that in surety that there is something truly pure and absolute at the bottom – at the root of existence. It supports the existence of abstract objects which are believed to exist in the realm which is different from sensible external world and our internal consciousness.

So, when you try to comprehend the Platonism and logocentrism together, you will appreciate that language and the logic it conveys, the meaning, the context it conveys is the foundation of how we understand the creation, the philosophy itself and the products of philosophy.

Language creates an objective pivot to create absolute ideas whose correlation yields into higher truths. Language creates ‘meaning’, ‘context’, ‘logic’ according to the Platonism.

(Park this second thought)

Semiotics – Language as signs

If language is so important to understand the true reality, it becomes very important to create a structure, rules, grammar to use it effectively. Semiotics deals with these ideas.

A sign is an important part of any language, one can say that any language is made up of signs. Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the two founders of Semiology established the two components of sign as signified and signifier. As these both words are self-explanatory – signified is the one which is of interest (also known as the ‘plane of content’) and signifier is how we are observing thereby expressing the object of interest (also known as the ‘plane of expression’).

So, in written language when I am saying apple, you know I am talking about the fruit called apple which looks red, tastes tart-sweet, is crispy-crunchy in texture when one takes its bite.

(This is the third thought to be parked)

Aufhebung – the sublation

In the modern western philosophy, which considered the language as the path leading to ultimate truth the idea of sublation created ‘logical’ revolution. The language as a tool to develop logic and this logic then leading to the investigation and discovery of the ultimate truth became really vital. For logic to remain ‘logical’ one needs to define the basic objective sides like right or wrong. A given idea must be right to exist in reality otherwise, it is wrong and is invalid. We build many arguments of right and wrong to lead us to the absolute understanding. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is known to develop the idea of sublation. Aufhebung literally means ‘to suspend’, ‘to abolish’.

For example, darkness is the condition when there is no light. If a place is called ‘lit’ it means that there is no darkness. So, this dualism created through sublation gave the greatest philosophical power to language and thereby logocentrism. When something is not good it is called as bad, when there are enough logical arguments like such ‘binary oppositions’, one can reach to the absolute truth as far the logocentrism goes. The process almost becomes objective, self-sufficient, and mechanical, there are no chances of human error when we are handling philosophical treatise; this is the same foundation through which judicial systems created the structure of law.

(the fourth thought to be parked)

Deconstruction

What came first – chicken or the egg? meaning or language?

Just recall the four ideas which we parked before.

Jacques Derrida is the philosopher who developed the ideas of deconstruction who solved the paradox of the logic in the logocentric philosophy.

It is important to accept that wherever a paradox arises there lies an opportunity of the creation of a new branch in our knowledge system. The deconstruction is that new branch which got created here. Derrida rejected the idea of Platonism. His work in deconstruction is highly inspired from the philosophy of phenomenology. Phenomenology is the study of fundamental nature of subjective consciousness and experience.

One would get confused to appreciate the matter of subjectivity in a philosophical discourse but phenomenology presents some valid points when we are questioning the reality and developing its understanding. How can subjectivity guarantee absolute truth?

Life was always there even before chicken and egg and also in both of them

Did you get my point?

The moment we separated egg from chicken and posed them as two distinct objects the famous question about their existence in timeline becomes meaningless. In the same sense, other similar questions have exactly same meaningless fate – what is life and death? what is good and bad? what is right and wrong? what is truth and lie?

Derrida pointed out that the moment we create duality in any argument we are losing some important information which could have showed us the ‘real’ reality. Maybe reality is not just two sides of the coin, maybe absoluteness itself is not ‘absolute’. In the attempt to create purely logical arguments, we lost the possibilities to see the real context behind the existence of these arguments.

Derrida strongly promoted the idea that meaning was always there, language is just a way to convey that meaning. Using language to find out new meaning does not lead to newer meaning because this ‘structured’, ‘logical’ language has already submitted itself to the already established two sides of the result – it will either be ‘right’ and if it is not right it will be ‘wrong’.

(Now bring that first parked thought of logocentrism – idea that language is the expression of the reality)

As the logocentrism goes, language is the mediator between consciousness and reality.     

Now read the lines below:

This is an example taken from internet. Fact is that every average, normal person can read and understand this. Our brain is always on energy optimization mode. It never reads each and every letter to make a meaning out of the given word, it looks at the bunch of symbols to make sense out of it. This is small example to show that meaning is more important than the symbols, signs used to convey that meaning.

If we were to strictly submit to the rules of English vocabulary and grammar, this presented sentence is senseless to all of us. That is why complete loyalty to language instead of meaning is of no use as Derrida says while explaining deconstruction.

(now bring the remaining thoughts parked in your mind)

Meaning is relative

In deconstruction, Derrida talks about how we understand anything, any idea and how logocentrism, structuralism limited our understanding. The example of scrambled words helps to identify the idea of difference – Derrida called it Différence (as in French pronunciation). Whether I call it difference in english or différence in french, you understand what I am talking about because you get the context (that we are comparing something and this is the word to establish the gap between that comparison)

When I say apple how do you know what I am talking about?

You understand that I am talking about a fruit based on the context of my speech. Otherwise, there are definitely some people who would thing of an apple as an iPhone. So, when I say an apple, you think of a class of fruits, compare other fruits with ‘this’ one, this happens really fast and we are unaware of it after some time. This is true because when I am saying apple you are sure that I am not talking about oranges or any other fruits.

When I am saying dog, you know it is dog because it is different from cats, cows, horses. You are sure of the dog ‘animal’ because it is different in some sense than other animals.

Do you see what is happening here?

Our association of given word to any object whether it may be tangible or intangible is not absolute and self-reliant. It is relative. It is built based on how it differs from another objects. This is really important to understand and appreciate when one is trying to understand deconstruction.

The logocentric and linguistic tool that we are tying to use to understand the absolute truth has its limitations of preconception. The logic has already defined its two states of existence. That is why the language based on such logic will be filled with paradoxes and will never yield newer truths.

Derrida posed validity of his idea of deconstruction by showing the limitations of semiotics.

Take speech as the language of philosophy to find the absolute truth. There is a moment in Christopher Nolan’s movie inception.

We always initiate our thinking by creating certain arbitrary point as a pivot to build logic upon it. Here, the person was told to not think about elephants and in order to not think about elephants he had first defined what elephants are – where he paradoxically first thinks about elephants – to not think about them! Did you see what happened here?

Derrida says that even though the ‘sign’ which goes as the fundamental block of language as semiotics show, it is not self-reliant, self-established. For a sign to signify something specific, it has to differ from the other objects on certain attributes, the meaning of that sign will be relative.

The Swastika used by Nazi is a holy symbol in Hindu culture which signifies well-being. (you definitely are aware of its meaning in western civilizations)

Meaning of signs is always relative, contextual.

It is our complete loyalty to symbols which misleads us, where in reality the symbols are mere media to convey the meaning, context and not the other way around. Meaning created signs, language, language does not create meaning. That is exactly why complete and blind submission to language in the pursuit of truth leads to dead end.

The purpose of language/ signs in deconstruction

(recall the fourth idea of sublation, duality in logic)

Derrida attacked the semiotics by showing its limitations.

Now, we already understand what is signifier and signified. Derrida argued that if there was no difference between signifier and signified there would not be any purpose of existence of the ‘sign’.

To explain this argument in simple words, if you are not told about the varieties in the citrus fruits, you cannot tell which one is Lemon, which one is Mandarin, which one is Lime, Pomelo, Kumquat, Grapefruit, Bergamot and Citron.    

If you don’t know the difference, everything would be lemon and orange

The relative difference between objects and ideas gives them their meaning. That is exactly why surrendering to strictly assigned meaning would steal the idea of its real nature. The idea would lose its other aspect due to the loss of information during formalization.   

So, deconstruction shows that meaning is relative. When a sign is presented, a language is used to build an idea,  it invites all its attributes and its contradictions. Again, Derrida says that blind surrender to formal attribute would never help in revealing the true nature of reality.

That is exactly why deconstruction also challenges sublation. According to deconstruction, there are never two extremes of any idea, attribute, sign. If we give into the idea of good-bad, black white, right-wrong we are losing the crucial information which lies in the spectrum that exists between these two ends. If we are able to create different levels in between these extremes of sublation we will discover new ideas.

When we talk about darkness, we know what brightness is, the relation between these two extremes helps us to understand each other. It is also true that there is some limitation in our vision which makes it impossible to perceive the constituents of the darkness, darkness is not darkness in itself, it is made up of other spectrums of light like infrared, ultraviolet. (This is just a scientific example but same can be implemented in purely philosophical treatise)

Deconstruction

So, Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction challenges the logical dualism and the purity, absoluteness of language – a powerful tool and foundation of the philosophy.

Derrida attacked logocentrism by showing the flaws in the structuralism, Derrida showed that language is actually fluid while conveying the meaning instead of being completely static.

Derrida proved his point by showing our preferences for the languages. For discussion he took preference of speech over writing.

Speech involves various modulation while expression which is not possible through writing. Even though writing has certain symbols to signify those periodic gaps they cannot replace the advantages of speech.

Now, when an overly complex idea is to be presented, in order to review the train of thoughts again and again, written language is more effective than speech. Wherever you have to ‘technically’ present a thought, written communication is better, when you want to preserve an idea forever written communication is better than speech.

This is where we realize that there is nothing like the best and the worst. Each language has its own characteristics which can be only understood and appreciated once we see the difference between them. The differences between them show that there is no hierarchy among them. There value proposition is relative.

Now the moment I bring in today’s recorded audio-visual medium which is the most popular language of documentation, writing and speech will seem trivial, but they still hold their value in certain aspects.

The meaning of deconstruction as Derrida says is to break down the language to understand what is also does not mean. Our human instinct and training in language pushes us to stick to the predefined notion of the language whereas we forget that our understanding of that very notion emerged from its comparison to other parts. Derrida through deconstruction urged that while looking at something to understand seeing what lies beyond its appearance will give you the real understanding.

Why seeing beyond what is shown is important? Because the understanding with which we are trying to interpret what is shown was never absolute, it was created only because of the difference between what it is and what it is not.

This is where deconstruction starts to confuse everyone. Derrida called this puzzlement “Aporia”.

Why the idea of deconstruction felt wrong? And is it really wrong?

The tool Derrida used to explain the notion called deconstruction itself becomes the weapon to destroy that same idea.

The very first thing to understand deconstruction is to remove the presumption which logical language, logocentrism gives that these are fully defined, singular objects which are being discussed. The moment object of discussion becomes singular, we lose the possibilities to see its other attributes. To deconstruct is to remove the preconception that there is something really absolute that we are trying to discover.

It’s like searching for star emitting only infrared light by using the camera which only works in the visible spectrum of light, because you assumed that there is only visible light and where the light is not there it is only dark. You won’t even be able to appreciate that there are some stars which emit different type of light. You presumption of duality of dark and light prevented that different knowledge of your reality. Only relative understanding of the light waves can help you appreciate that there are some waves which are different from others, which are on a ‘spectrum’.   

Derrida’s ideas were controversial because most of the critical ideas in philosophy, mathematics are built upon clear distinction between objects and their fixated meaning and attribution.

Even for the word deconstruction, people attributed it to rejecting what the language conveys and accepting rather its opposite.

Deconstruction is not just breaking down any idea to expose its flaws. Deconstruction rejects the complete loyalty to the focal point of discussion while inviting the references which created our so called ‘focal point’. Most of the times our trained brain seeks for exact opposite which is where deconstruction gets misinterpreted.

Conclusion

Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown through the language. When we are talking about something we interpret what is our ‘subject matter’ because we know the differences between other subjects and ‘this’ subject. When we appreciate such differences the meaning becomes fluid instead of static, the thinking becomes analogue instead of digital ones and zeros. Possibilities open-up instead on being ended in the paradoxes. Whatever we are thinking about and establishing as the singular truth is inherently non-singular because it always needs its other counterparts to justify its position.

Many religious wars were waged because of remaining loyal to the religious languages, script and not understanding what they actually meant, many laws were exploited because the loopholes were discovered based on understanding only what they meant. This keeps on happening.

Deconstruction becomes very important tool to critique the ideas given in any discussion where the final pursuit is meaning and not the formality.

For Derrida’s deconstruction the ‘Aporia’, the puzzlement is not a sign of weakness rather it is the sign of maturity.

Derrida’s deconstruction thus showed that only fancy formalization of philosophy will not help us to understand the reality. We have to get rid of our loyalty to the idea that there is something really singular out there which would define everything in the end. Meaning is not what the language is conveying structurally, it is also what lies beyond that which is not conveyed.  The things which are not conveyed are the line of comparison to define the worth of the things being conveyed.  

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

Zhuangzi, Chuang Tsu: Inner Chapters

P.S. You will appreciate the ideas of deconstruction more if you watch Denis Villeneuve’s movie Arrival (2016). The movie beautifully shows the gap between language and meaning and also how potent the ideas of deconstruction are!

The Book of Five Rings – The Wind Book

The Wind Book from Miyamoto Musashi’s The Book of Five Rings is about the changing traditions according to the lifestyle. The Wind Book focuses on multi-disciplinary ways of learning things and developing wisdom. Miyamoto-san through the Wind Book explains that there is no single secret way, no single formula, no single attacking style to solve an unconventional problem.

Miyamoto Musashi’s philosophy for 21st century

Ever Changing Nature of The Wind

Our personality is the outcome of the surroundings, the society we live in, the people we interact with. Our family is the immediate society for us and in most cases has larger impact on our conscious and subconscious choices. The influences from our family, our friends, our heroes/ idols/ role models, the villains we hate create certain set of preferences towards everything. And when stuck in some thin situations, our preferences may become our limitations which surely make life difficult. Miyamoto-san knew this very well and hence in his Wind Book from the Book of Five Rings he tries to throw light on these ideas of obsession and liking towards certain ways of living life.

Miyamoto Musashi while discussing his ‘Way of Strategy’, ‘Way of Life’ through the Book of Five Rings makes sure that the person absorbing all his philosophy will not develop that subconscious bias, preference, liking to his philosophy. For Miyamoto-san, any type of favorite-ism, preference, polarization, liking is instant death when we are faced with the ultimate challenges in the battle of life. We have already seen his philosophy through The Ground Book, The Water Book and The Fire Book. The Wind Book is about how to not follow these ideas blindly.

The Wind Book is about the ways to actually solve the problems, especially the unconventional problems. Unconventional problems have this “unconventional” nature only because they do not fit the “traditional” patterns of our understandings and knowledge. The Wind symbolizes the change. Humanity has gone through many generations, eras to reach to the present modern stage. It is important to notice that the traditions we had before are changing according to the challenges presented to them. Even though we hold on to the traditions symbolizing their preferential nature, inherently orthodox nature but at the same time the adaptability of the same traditions to change themselves to the newer lifestyles indicates how nothing is permanent in our lives. (The word tradition itself points to that which is being done, being carried repetitively over the course of time, mostly mindlessly-mechanically) The Wind Book is about making necessary changes in our Ways of Life. The Wind Book thus demands to do that which is necessary instead of doing that which one loves especially in challenging times in life.  It is about being multidisciplinary in the learning process throughout the life.  

It is Miyamoto-san’s way of saying “Modern problems require modern solution.” (Apologies for the oversimplification)

“It is difficult to know yourself if you do not know others. To all ways there are side-tracks. If you study a way daily, and your spirit diverges, you may think you are obeying a Way but objectively it is not the true way. If you are following the true way and diverge a little, this will later become a large divergence.”

Miyamoto-san was very well aware that the wisdom he was trying to dispense through the Book of Five Rings is solely dependent on efforts the readers will take to implement in their own real, practical life. You will find sentences pointing to self-study, self-practice, self-realization scattered all over the book, rather in almost every paragraph he tells that “you must appreciate this”, “you must learn this on your level”, “you must understand this”. Miyamoto-san urges readers to explore his shared wisdom on their personal level. When a person starts to test and practice a part of technique on his own level without his master’s direct supervision, then there is high possibility that he will practice the technique he loves the most more and will not practice the technique which he does not like or finds difficult. This favor towards certain techniques limits the ability of the person thereby diverts him from the actual intent of the wisdom shared by his master. Many a times, when the pupil fails certain unconventional challenges even after fully practicing, he blames his master for not teaching him completely and properly. Miyamoto-san thus warns his pupil to not stick to a favorite technique, favorite philosophy. He knows that even a small preference towards a thing can drag the person completely back in the moments of challenge (just like the story of Achilles’ heel)

The story of Achilles heel implies that even a single insignificant weakness can cause downfall of great person in unconventional challenges. It is rooted in the myth of Achilles’ mother dipping him in the River Styx, making his entire body invulnerable except for the part of his foot where she held him—the proverbial Achilles heel.

The Wind Book

The Wind according to Miyamoto-san refers to the traditions- the old, the present day and the family traditions. The Wind book is about picking the best from the ongoing trends and not blindly sticking to certain favorite trends. For the trends, traditions keep on changing continuously like the Wind.

“Without knowledge of the Ways of other schools, it is difficult to understand the essence of my Ichi school.”

In simple words, this is Miyamoto-san’s attempt to convince how his philosophy works by using practical and effective technique of comparison. It is his way to point out where other schools go wrong.

“That none of these are the true Way I show clearly in the interior of this book – all he vices and virtues and rights and wrongs. My Ichi school, is different. Other schools make accomplishments their means of livelihood, growing flowers and decoratively, coloring articles in order to sell them. This is definitely not the way of strategy.“

Wisdom is free from the material gains. And the wisdom of Miyamoto-san is not meant for the material gains rather it lies above all materialistic things. Even in the Ground book Miyamoto Musashi make is very clear that the real way to live a life is not about extending yourselves to some material gains, it is about discovering different possibilities the life offers and remaining open to such experiences. If you already have preferences towards certain ways of life then you won’t be able to experience the infinite possibilities of the life.

Many of us have such early preferences in our lives, especially while transitioning from the campus to professional life. Education system has further amplified such preferences. It is not imperative if one is an engineer then he/she should only follow that profession for life. There are other and many ways to discover life, this also does not mean that one should blindly follow the trend to achieve what others have achieved.    

Other Schools Using Extra-Long Swords

Miyamoto-san now focuses on how certain schools, idea of combat actually has a characteristic style, preferences towards certain move, certain weapon. This preference, this characteristic style actually limits the person in completely unconventional challenges which may lead to death.

“I expect there is a case for the school in question liking extra-long sword as a part of its doctrine. But if we compare this to real life it is unreasonable.“

Those people who consider themselves the expert of long sword will fall short when they are trapped and cornered in confined spaces – where free movements become restricted. The skills they practiced hard, the skills the bound their whole lives to – here the skill of long sword fighting will be of no use. Blindly following certain technique without an intent to understand it will be fatal in life altering scenarios.

“From older times, it has been said: “Great and small go together.” So do not unconditionally dislike extra-long swords. What I dislike is the inclination towards the long sword.“

Thus Miyamoto-san again makes his point clear. He has no problem with the people teaching these techniques, he has problem with students blindly sticking to these techniques and these techniques only because these are their favorite techniques. Your enemy won’t always see you your favorite moves and attack accordingly, rather he will attack with that moves which you do not like (obviously that is why he is your enemy in the end). Too much inclination towards certain things, certain ideologies, certain, styles, ways of thinking can narrow our field of perception and create biases.

“In my doctrine, I dislike preconceived narrow spirit.“

The idea is to keep you mind open while diligently practicing certain technique, skill. A true teacher always wants his pupil to follow his teachings but also to develop his own personal style, his personal touch.

The Strong Long Sword Spirit in Other Schools

When Miyamoto-san explained how long sword can be problematic in a confined areas he is aware that a blind follower will call long sword a bad choice. That is why make it clear that it was never about the weapon, it is always about the attitude of the warrior, the intent of the warrior which is to kill the enemy. Whatever weapon you carry, whatever technique you use – do it with the intent to execute the job instead of showing off the weapon or technique.

Miyamoto-san explains that when you think of using long sword strongly your cuts will fall short and ineffective also you could not attack with lesser strength as it is already a foolish move. What you are trying to do while attacking with strength is to execute the style and weapon in a style, you want that move to happen in certain stylish way – that actually won’t kill the enemy. This gets even worse when enemy recognizes the style you are trying to demonstrate, thereby predicting your attack. Miyamoto-san calls such techniques of blindly using strength to win the battles a foolish move.

He says:

“The strongest hand wins.” has no meaning.

Even in big battles if your enemy is as strong as you, then using strength will only consume your valuable resources and there will be no favorable outcome. This is time when a warrior must think with the intent of winning instead of focusing of small details of how to execute certain style of attack on an enemy. The warrior must think in an unconventional way when strengths are equal.

“The spirit of my school is to win through the wisdom of strategy, paying no attention to trifles.”

Use of the shorter long sword in other schools

Miaymoto-san again practically explains that for big people handling big sword i.e., Tachi will be very easy and for the same reason short sword i.e.; Katana will be least preferred to them. Big people already have such preferences. Some people will think that by using the Katana – Shorter Long Sword they can stab enemy by easily jumping over unguarded enemy.

Tachi – long sword and Katana – short sword

“To aim for the enemy’s unguarded movement is completely defensive and undesirable at close quarters with the enemy.“

Miyamoto-san makes it clear that even preference towards Katana s ineffective for those who think that Shorter long sword – Katana is better that the Long sword – Tachi. When a warrior will be surrounded by many enemies, he will have to sweep his Katana multiple times in fight which will be difficult when simultaneously fighting many people. He will get “entangled” with the enemy, meaning that his moves will be predictable to the other enemies around him.

“The sure way to win thus is to chase the enemy around in confusing manner, causing him to jump aside, with your body held strongly and straight. You must chase the enemy around and make him obey your spirit.“

So, Miyamoto-san says here that it is not only about executing a sword move or using either Tachi or Katana effectively in the battle. It is about confusing enemy to kill him and kill him only. Your enemy won’t fall for your technique and when he knows your technique it is already useless. You enemy will fall for the spirit of unpredictability you hold which cannot be gauged by certain techniques, styles.  

Other Schools with Many Methods of Using the Long Sword

It is very interesting how Miyamoto-san in his times understood what actually urges a person to like certain move, prefer certain weapon, prefer certain style. It is because the student thinks that this is the formula, the ultimate way to dominate the enemy. He thinks that ‘this’ style he likes will bring something special out of him. He thinks that this template guarantees his victory, because following certain set of style a template calms his mind through the illusion of predictability in chaotic situations. It is only when things don’t happen the way this person expected, then he realizes the illusion of style, illusion of ‘attitude’ he was carrying with him.

That is exactly why Miyamoto Musashi explain that the best style is to follow no style. The best secret is that there is not secret. (Classic Kung Fu Panda moment)

“Attitude – No attitude“

“The Secret ingredient is that there is no secret ingredient”

Style brings in predictability which eases the mind of enemy and gives patterns t defeat you. By imbibing free spirit, a warrior becomes unpredictable and lethal. He dominates his enemy simply by confusing the enemy instead of using special technique, special resource or special weapon.

“Attitude is the spirit of awaiting an attack”

Attitudes are meant only when the warrior is practicing, when there is no enemy. Enemy will never wait for your style to get executed properly, rather he expects exactly opposite.

Fixing the Eyes in Other Schools

Miyamoto-san also explains how certain combat techniques teach the warrior to focus on certain parts weapons of the enemy. He knew that if the warrior only focuses on certain areas during the fight, then he eventually narrows down his vision. Narrowing vision immediately cascades into his own confusion if even a single move goes unpredictable.

“If you fix the eyes on these places your spirit can become confused and your strategy thwarted.”

In simple words, if one only focuses on certain zones, areas of the enemy he can be easily fooled of confused when enemy discovers his areas of preferences.

In modern times, we have so much raw data, information available everywhere that is has started overwhelming us. It has created those unbreakable reward cycles, short term pleasure cycles which are difficult to break. Very few amongst us are able to actually make sense of the information we are being fed continuously. Thus Miyamoto-san talks here about developing a sense of intuition, insights and understanding about the information around us. He does not want a mechanical fighting machine executing techniques seamlessly, reacting to the attack effectively; he wants a thinking warrior who can end the battle with minimum resources and minimum damage.

“When you become accustomed to something, you are not limited to the use of your eyes.”

When you perceive and feel surrounding around you, when you develop an intuition, you never react mechanically rather you react with an intent. When a seasoned musician is playing his instrument, he does not even feel the need to look at the positioning of his fingers, his limbs. He is so in-tune with the music that he can play certain improvisation even without physically looking at the instrument. That is what is the difference between seeing and perceiving.

When a warrior comes out of this mechanistic nature of styles, moves then he truly becomes visionary. He does not need physical eyes to understand the surroundings around him.

Use of the Feet in Other Schools

Miyamoto-san also talks about how a warrior should use his feet in combat. As his teachings go, there is no special way of walking to win any fight.

“In my strategy, the footwork does not change. I always walk as I usually do in the street. You must never lose control of your feet. According to the enemy’s rhythm, move fast or slowly, adjusting your body not too much and not too little.”

In simple words, if enemy notices that you are walking slow then you become predictable; you will again become predictable when enemy notices that you are running fast. So, the idea is to walk normally to demonstrate your calm spirit as if nothing is happening to you. This confuses the enemy who is so eager to understand your rhythm and attack accordingly.

Destroying the predictability in every possible sense is the idea of winning a neck-to-neck competitive game.

Speed in Other Schools

Miyamoto-san also clears one myth in combat that being fast guarantees victory.

“Speed implies that things seem fast or slow, according to whether or not they are in rhythm. Whatever the Way, the master of strategy does not appear fast.“

Whenever a warrior thinks that it is the speed that actually killed the enemy, he is wrong. It was the unpredictability, out of rhythm move that killed him. If the enemy would have been as fast as you then that same move would be useless.

Speed in every combat is always relative as Miyamoto-san goes here. He wants the warrior to be full of intent and not speedy or swift. He wants the warrior to make the attack at the right time, with full intent and with full clarity.

“Interior” and “Surface” in other Schools

Miyamoto-san exclusively wrote the Wind Book to discuss the shortcomings of having certain favorite style of fighting. On superficial level and for a normal reader, it will feel like he is trying to brag about how and why only his technique is the best technique in the whole world. But deep down when Miyamoto-san clarifies the shortcomings of the other schools and people of those schools blindly following such teachings then it becomes very clear why there is never such thing like a single formula to victory or a single weapon to defeat them all or a single style to kill an enemy. In a way Miyamoto-san actually identified the concept of Black Swan in his ancient days. There will always be something which you cannot gauge, cannot predict which will completely contradict to what your previous beliefs were before. It will challenge you to change all the previous assumptions, styles, preferences you had.  

A Black Swan Effect is an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight-previous date to predict.
People used to think that there is no such thing as a Black Swan until they discovered one in Australia.

Hence, he instructs the readers about how to start learning something new. According to Miyamoto-san, the ways of learning are always changing like the wind, there is no style or no single style to achieve anything and everything in our lives. As a lifelong learner, you will start somewhere and build on it without having any prejudices, presumptions and keep your eyes open to everything beneficial in your knowledge building process. The idea is to start with what you like just to penetrate the topic but when you get the hold of it you must not limit it to your preferences, you should widen your perspectives to learn the new and unconventional.

“When I teach my way, I first teach by training in techniques which are easy for the pupil to understand, a doctrine which is easy to understand. I gradually endeavor to explain the deep principle, points, which it is hardly possible to comprehend, according to the pupil’s progress. In any event, because the way to understanding is through experience, I do not speak of “interior” and “gate”.“

Richard Feynman was one such person who was known such unconventional critical thinking and problem solving, Pablo Picasso who is known for creating such out of the world and unconventional perspectives through his art. These are some examples of people who truly rediscovered what their domains of expertise were.

“I could now continue by giving a specific account of these schools one by one, from the “gate” to the “interior”, but I have intentionally not named the schools or their main points. The reason for this is that different branches of schools give different interpretations of the doctrines. In as much as men’s opinion differ, so there must be differing ideas on the same matter. Thus no one man’s conception is valid for any school.“

Miyamoto-san here explains why his teachings do not include the best of all, the first of all technique to fight the battle – one-to-one or in masses. He also makes it clear that why he didn’t even number his teachings, techniques, chapters or the books. He knew that our human mind is so perceptible of the patterns, rankings, preferences in everything that it immediately develops a bias, a preference towards everything. Miyamoto Musashi’s the Wind Book thus is all about understanding the traditions, changing them by challenging the bad aspects for the ultimate gain of true wisdom. This process itself is never ending, hence it is not a job of single person or a single ideology or a single philosophy. It is very important to understand the greatness of Miyamoto-san’s teachings for being open to new ideas, being open to up-gradation/ renewal for that is how you can win over every unconventional challenge.

The true wisdom is innocent yet lethal; It is free from the biases, prejudices and preferences. A true wisdom never holds onto something, it is not mechanical rather it morphs according to the challenge presented. When the true wisdom fails to overcome the challenge presented, then it is also ready to reject its previous identity only to be born into a newer and evolved wisdom. Miyamoto Musashi’s the Wind Book is all about such continuously changing, upgrading spirit of the wisdom of life.

“You must simply keep your spirit true to realize the virtue of strategy.“

“You keep on learning and learning, and pretty soon you learn something no one has learned before.”

Richard Feynman

Links for further readings:

  1. The Book of Five Rings – The Ground Book
  2. The Book of Five Rings – The Water Book
  3. The Book of Five Rings – The Fire Book
  4. The Book of Five Rings – The Wind Book
  5. The Book of Five Rings – The Book of the Void

The Practicality of Philosophy

What is the purpose of Philosophy?
one of my favorite memes (Source: starecat.com)

We live in a competitive and fast-moving world where everything’s success depends on the outcomes and their value delivery. Take any example, if any movie release fails to entertain the major audiences, consider it flopped; if any project is not delivering the expected profits to the company consider it stopped; if any equipment is not working properly for the performance it promised, consider it a market failure; if any start-up is not built upon the actual market requirements, consider it a flop business; an employee fails to reach his targets, consider no promotion or even a pink slip. Whenever you are working on achieving anything and if your actions and thought process behind them are not directing you to the Goal, people will suggest you to change your strategy. In nutshell, everything you do, every thought you have is expected to have a fruitful outcome, value creation, profit, gain, benefit thereby there must be some utility. We now call these things, these thoughts “practical”. General thought process always suggests to have the practical way of life in order to succeed in a way.

I am of the same opinion, that doing certain things, acts, thinking (actually overthinking) about everything you stumble upon is expected to deliver some “practical” benefit in my life. If you studied enough and can’t get the job of specific salary then what good is your education? There must always be some definite value delivery from our actions otherwise we are just wasting time and getting nothing.

The situation worsens when you implement the same logic to the ways you think about anything and everything you stumble upon. It is like day dreaming as you are only thinking about some random things, are engrossed completely in the world of your own and there is no real-life benefit from it. Then, it becomes imperative to “Get Real” in life, sort your things and be practical and use your common sense.          

Now, here comes a short story-

In a fight, the flight attendant finds an elder person going through severe chest pain, she immediately asks for the expert help.
Flight Attendant- Attention all, we have an emergency. Is there any Doctor onboard?
(One person raises his hands)
The person- Yes, I am a doctor.
Flight Attendant- We need medical help.
The person- But, I am a doctor of Philosophy.
Flight Attendant- He is going to die
The person- Aren’t we all anyways?

One can only imagine the awkwardness and impractical response of philosopher to the situation in the flight.

I used to think that the philosophy and it’s ideas yet interesting and intriguing cannot handle the reality of life and solve practical problems.

And, (as usual) I was wrong.

Here it goes…

The question is-

Will thinking about every possible thing you are exposed to (and even about the things you may never get exposed to) and asking “unnecessary questions” about it add value to our life? Will thinking about things irrelevant to your job is going to increase your performance at your workplace? Is thinking about any random thing is going to put food on your table?

In short, what is the worth of the philosophical ideas, questions if they are not going to solve our practical problems? What is the practicality of philosophy?

This was the question I was stuck at; even though philosophical ideas have always intrigued me.

Then I found my answer in Bertrand Russel’s book called “The Problems of Philosophy” with the last essay called “the Value of Philosophy”. The ideas explained by Bertrand Russel in this writings answer the very basic question about the utility of philosophy.

Ends of life

Russel explains the idea of ends of life by distinguishing between the nature of Physical Sciences and the philosophy. The idea is that all the physical sciences that we as a human have established have contributed to the society in some ways. The developments in physics led to inventions of uncountable things like lasers, semiconductors, telescopes, machines and what not hence landing mankind into the modern world. The developments in virology, bio-technology, modern medicines helped us to come out of the global pandemic. The developments in geography helped us to explore the globe, share our trades, cultures, profits, save us from natural calamities. The psychology helped in maintaining the mental well-being, the social well being of the society there by controlling the sanity in the people. The economics helped to efficiently utilize and manage our resources in order strive as a species on a space floating rock. These physical sciences have mastered various ends of life and are continuously contributing ahead

What about philosophy? If we are going to discuss how certain philosophy has solved the world hunger or how a philosophy has cured the incurable diseases in history or how a philosophy has saved people from famine or how a philosophy landed us on another celestial body, then the answer is surely no. There are no practical ends of life which philosophy helps us to achieve.

Uncertainty of philosophy

Bertrand Russel has very beautifully established the difference between the nature of Physical Sciences and philosophy. The Physical Sciences have postulates, theories, formulae, a definite structure which builds the all knowledge they represent. There is a systematic path to be followed in order to answer the posed question. If you ask a physicist why the sky is blue? he will approach the problem from the branch of optics then thereby refraction and scattering and the spectrum of light. If you ask how the eclipses occur? to an astronomer, he will take you through solar system, to planets, their satellites and their rotations, orbits. It can go on and on.

In short, in all the physical sciences the truths established are definitive. There are definite answers to the questions posed. Such is not the case with philosophy. If you pose a philosophical question as in “What is the purpose of life?” every philosopher will have his own versions and there is no surety of definite answer. If you ask questions like, why was the world created?  Why was the universe created? Are we really body with a soul or a soul with a body?

See the pattern we can observe from the philosophical questions is that the truths they are giving are not certain. On contrary, the truths revealed in physical sciences are definite, their truth value is certain based on the truths they are derived from due to structured-ness. Bertrand Russel establishes that all the physical sciences are originated from philosophy. When the definitive-ness, certainties of truth extraction system, knowledge building system of these philosophies became strong, they separated from the philosophy and get independence.

Thus, the only thing certain in philosophy is that there are no certain answers to the questions posed. If the answers are getting definitive, certain then a new physical science gets established thereby separating from philosophy. Philosophy of mind became psychology; philosophy of heavenly bodies became astronomy.

What I found interesting in this idea of “genesis of physical sciences from philosophy” is that though upon certainty of truth/ knowledge physical sciences become free from philosophy, the next unanswered questions in physical sciences immediately start to redirect themselves to philosophy again until the certainty of answers are obtained thereby proving the presence of philosophical inheritance.  Our quest for understanding “the nature of reality” in the world of modern physics is one such strong example.

Richard Feynman in one of his famous lectures discussed about questioning the nature of reality as we understand:

“it’s a very strong tendency of people to say against some idea, if someone comes up with an idea, and says let’s suppose the world is this way.

And you say to him, well, what would you get for the answer for such and such a problem? And he says, I haven’t developed it far enough. And you say, well, we have already developed it much further. We can get the answers very accurately. So, it is a problem, as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.”

Richard Feynman

Meaning is it not always compulsory to have structured-ness and definitive nature to any idea. There may be always some indefinitve-ness to the answers in philosophy.

Truth of the answers to the questions of philosophy

Now that it is clear that the answers to the questions in the philosophy are not definite, not certain; it is also important to understand that the answers don’t lose their value due to their indefinite or uncertain nature. Rather they bring us closer to the unrealizable, un-experienceable truth.

According to Russel, the confinement of knowledge is the major point which poses the question on “the practicality” of philosophy in our life.

I think what Russel is trying to say here is that as soon as the nature of the truth of knowledge starts following a pattern/ a trend, it gets confined in the structured-ness of certainty thereby getting its independence, self-reliance. The philosophy hence will always remain as a field (even the word “field” is so confined) rather expanse of uncertainty where there will always be some room for speculation.

In order to ask for value of philosophy, one has to confine it to some ideas and then compare these ideas to other ideas. But the game philosophy plays here is that the you lose the identity of philosophy once you confine it to some set of ideas in knowledge/ physical sciences. Thus, remains incomparable.

Funny thing is that the solution of such problem will start with – What is comparison? How to measure the worth of anything? (Which themselves are good philosophical questions!)

Philosophic Contemplation: the idea of Self and not-Self

Russel suggests that the value of philosophy will be only realized when the ends of the life are not limited to ‘Self’. I think what Russel is trying to convey is that the realization of something greater above ourselves itself is humbling. Understanding that the knowledge will still exist irrespective of our existence is one important part of we becoming free from our own identity.

When there will be search for knowledge for Self, the answers gained will be confined, they will always reflect the nature of the self or the seeker.

But, once one understands that the knowledge, philosophy is above himself i.e., once a person starts seeking questions to the answers not for the betterment of himself only but for the knowledge itself then the knowledge reveals itself. This knowledge will not be definitive, certain. This knowledge will not have concepts of good or bad, pure or impure, left or right, profit or loss, worthy or unworthy. It will be only the knowledge itself where truth is still uncertain, indefinite an innocent. Russel calls the philosophy as the union of Self with not-Self. That is in order to understand something greater than ourselves, we have to lose the idea of ourselves, our being.

The curse on humanity

The question of finding the worth of philosophy itself has its own limitations. The concept of being worthy brings in the ideas of comparison, tradable value, what one gets in return, replacement value, a sense of transaction, gap due to absence, appreciation due to presence. This transactional, tradable, replacement value itself is a very small part of materialistic ideology of our human life.

See, our existence, thereby we being alive is dependent on so many materialistic things/ resources which are inherently important for our existence. You will not find a beggar asking for the explanation of the ideas in stoicism or nihilism. Most of the times he will only think about the ways to get the next meal. (Although, a beggar can also question about nature of him being a beggar

instead of a king if he wants)

In short, what I am trying to establish here is that for us as a human being, we need materialistic objects and our interactions with them through our senses to become aware of our consciousness. To become sure that the materialistic world and the sensations from them are not the only bounds of the life that we live in. The curse to human life here, I would say is that the first step in awareness of “knowledge greater than Self” starts with the awareness of our materialistic nature. Our first dose of true knowledge is only possible from the establishment of truths from the material world and our interactions with them. The material worlds being born from higher level of “uncertain things” reveal these uncertainties, thereby making us question their fundamental nature. This leads us to understand that there are things greater that what we are experiencing but there is no surety of completely true, certain answer.

Lifting the curse

I have a thought that, there is also benediction for this curse, rather anti-curse which is “the Curiosity”. Curiosity itself is the definition of philosophy. The whole purpose of philosophy is not to find the definitive answers, truths to the questions rather it is asking the questions and keep asking the questions.

Satisfaction of the curiosity is I think the boundary of the truths. The extent of satisfaction of the curiosity will be dependent upon how real or practical you want to get (What is the extent of real and practical also needs definition thereby). Here, there is no place for value, worthiness rather it is about satisfying the purpose and truly implementing philosophy to solve some real problems.

Bruce Lee has one famous quote on the same front:

“…here is the natural instincts and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. If you have one to the extreme, you will be very unscientific. If you are another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden ‘a mechanical man’- no longer a human being. So, it is a successful combination of both, so therefore it’s not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness or natural unnaturalness.”

Bruce Lee

It is about the union of Self and not-Self to find the knowledge as Russel explains. You need not to infuse your boundaries, your prejudices to the questions of philosophy while on the quest of knowledge. You have to again lose your identity to find the real knowledge.

Again, Bruce Lee’s philosophy about being water reflects similar ideas about the nature of true knowledge from philosophy.

“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in cup, it becomes the cup. You put water in bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash. Be water my friend”

Bruce Lee

Be water my friend!

– Bruce Lee

This also explains the innocent nature of knowledge. It takes shape of anything that it is in.

(That is the exact reason why we were forced to write the essay in our school on “Science: Curse or Boon”! OK, Jokes apart)

Having answers to the questions ends the quest thereby giving the boundary to the idea; asking the questions creates the possibilities. And creation of possibilities however uncertain they may be is the purpose thereby the worth of philosophy.

So, philosophy is not about finding definitive answers, it is about keeping on asking questions.

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

– Richard Feynman

 

“Through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of the union with the universe which constitutes its highest good”

– Bertrand Russel, The value of Philosophy from “The Problems of Philosophy”  

      

Further readings and references:

  1. The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russel
  2. Richard Feynman– image from Wikimedia
  3. Bertrand Russel– image from Wikimedia
  4. Bruce Lee– image from Wikimedia
  5. Philosophers meme- Form starecat.com
  6. Clip from the lectures by Richard Feynman from youtube.com
  7. Clip on Bruce Lee’s Philosophy from Bruce Lee “The Lost Interview” from youtube.com