The Art of War

[Brian]

The Art of War wasn't a requirement when I was in business school but I had read it several times before then and I introduced several fellow students to it then -- this and The Prince. One of the mistakes sometimes made is a presumed equivocation between business and war -- this treatise provides some valuable insights into human nature and draws a circle around the significance of strategic thinking. In fact, one of my more frequently quoted excerpts is:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

I have read this work many times and, as is the case with all great works, I find new treasure each time.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

I’ll try but I will be very careful.

 

There’s some weird stuff going on over here and I guess I just went temporarily out of my mind in a dualistic mess. I was mixing religions and also meditating too hard I think. I’m also not in a stable place in my life. If my mind were stable, you would think my life would be as well right? I’ll do my best.

The truth is a beautiful thing.  Thanks for sharing that.

 

And, based on what you said above, I think this exercise might end up being to your advantage.

 

I doubt we will be talking about religion in this thread.  There's no place for that.

 

We will likely have to talk about dualism though.  But then, this may help you sort some thing out in your personal life.

 

Thanks for hanging in there!

 

Anyhow, yes, we are still in Chapter One of The Art of War.

 

 

Another important concept in this chapter, IMO, is that of discipline:

 

From Giles' notes to this concept:

 

Ts`ao Ts`ao's own comment on the present passage is characteristically curt:  "when you lay down a law,  see that it is not disobeyed; if it is disobeyed the offender must be put to death."  ibid

 

Sure, death is a little harsh.  But it was used for setting a standard; an example.  In times of war the law must be obeyed else there will be disaster.

 

In our own personal life, if we do not have discipline we will accomplish little good.  This stands true regarding any type of training we wish to undertake.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Marblehead

[Michael Sternbach]

woodcarver, just like MH, I think you are doing a magnificient job.

 

Talking about Tokugawa, I feel placing him in the same category like Cesar and Napoleon is alright. I can't imagine that your fairly nuanced comments regarding him would have seriously insulted anybody, and if so, your apology should have straightened things out. I asked my wife about the matter (she is Japanese), and she said that she couldn't care less.

 

But being a counsellor, I can't help noticing that you tend to be apologetic. I would like to encourage you to use this thread as a practising tool to help you develop a more detached view on those patterns of yours and, as far as you feel up to it, make new choices regarding them. To no longer be your own enemy, you need to know "him" just like you know yourself. LOL

 

To comfort yourself, remember that your readers here are a fairly tolerant heap who appreciate your readiness to bear with them.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[woodcarver]

Discipline is my weakest trait and how you know that I'm afraid to ask but not surprised. I will take you up on that offer just so long I'm not put to death.

 

I really appreciate it. Seriously.

[woodcarver]

Another thing. Whatever was going on with me rubbed off on my roomate who is not spiritual. I noticed last night that he was talking to himself pretty loudly and is laughing differently. I hate to ask for a mile after you just gave me an inch but this is concerning.

[Marblehead]

Discipline is my weakest trait and how you know that I'm afraid to ask but not surprised. I will take you up on that offer just so long I'm not put to death.

Yeah, death shouldn't need to be considered here.  After all, we aren't conducting a war.  But to the point, Brian mentioned "The Prince" above and although I have never read it, I think Machiavelli would likely agree that it is death for any one disobeying the laws of war.

 

Yes, please don't ask as I would not be able to answer.

 

It's neat when we see our self in the concepts of the discussions we engage in.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Marblehead

[woodcarver]

Yeah, death shouldn't need to be considered here.  After all, we are conducting a war.  But to the point, Brian mentioned "The Prince" above and although I have never read it, I think Machiavelli would likely agree that it is death for any one disobeying the laws of war.

 

Yes, please don't ask as I would not be able to answer.

 

It's neat when we see our self in the concepts of the discussions we engage in.

Never read Machiavelli to be honest.

 

As for the rest of what you said, this is what I'm talking about. I'm going to not post for a little while.

[Marblehead]

As for the rest of what you said, this is what I'm talking about. I'm going to not post for a little while.

Don't think; experience.

[woodcarver]

Alrighty then. Journey of a thousand miles.

 

Has anybody ever used this book to it's full potential and gone through all the calculations?

[Marblehead]

Has anybody ever used this book to it's full potential and gone through all the calculations?

Not directly, no.  However, I can state that I followed (mostly unknowingly) the concepts and managed to stay alive for twenty years in the Army.  Therefore I retired instead of being sent home in a body bag.

 

Yes, the journey.  It starts with the first step.  And we will get distracted along the way.  And we will even stumble and fall some times.  That's the way life is for most of us.

 

With good fortune we will make the full journey of studying The Art Of War and will be able to discuss how the principles within have and can be applied to our every-day life.

[Marblehead]

After reading Giles' notes to the chapter I would point out two things:

 

First, regarding the temple, Giles suggests that this is the General's tent.

 

Second, is the concept of practice.  In modern days we call this "war games".  All levels of the command practice their individual duties and responsibilities so that when the real thing happens we respond instinctively.  Without fear or question.  (The US Marines and Special Forces of all the Service branches operate at this level.)

 

In our everyday life we could call this having confidence in being able to accomplish the goals we undertake.

[woodcarver]

After reading Giles' notes to the chapter I would point out two things:

 

First, regarding the temple, Giles suggests that this is the General's tent.

 

Second, is the concept of practice.  In modern days we call this "war games".  All levels of the command practice their individual duties and responsibilities so that when the real thing happens we respond instinctively.  Without fear or question.  (The US Marines and Special Forces of all the Service branches operate at this level.)

 

In our everyday life we could call this having confidence in being able to accomplish the goals we undertake.

Do you prefer the Giles version? I don't know Chinese. Is there a translator bum here that has some insight on that?

 

On having confidence in the actions we take... I usually find that careful, logical, realistic planning is frowned apon in today's society. What's up with that?

[Marblehead]

Good questions.

Do you prefer the Giles version? I don't know Chinese. Is there a translator bum here that has some insight on that?

Giles' translation is the only one I have on my computer (MS Word) that includes all his notes and comments.

 

There are a few members here at DaoBums who could offer recommendations regarding translations but I'm not one of them.  I don't read Chinese.

 

On having confidence in the actions we take... I usually find that careful, logical, realistic planning is frowned apon in today's society. What's up with that?

Ah!  Today's mentality.  We have to do everything "NOW".  No time for planning.  Just do it!  And we all have to get to where we are going as soon as possible.

 

I'm old fashioned.  I don't multitask.  But I still screw up sometimes.  Hehehe.

 

But sure, if we know what our capabilities and capacities are we can proceed with confidence because our planned actions will be within the realm of what we know we can do.  Of course, we can't always know what might happen exterior to us so we must remain flexible.

 

Ah!, that word "flexible".  One of my favorites.  In the TTC many translators use the word "weak" and I think that this is incorrect.  It are not the weak who survive; it are the flexible.

[woodcarver]

Good questions.

Giles' translation is the only one I have on my computer (MS Word) that includes all his notes and comments.

Good. Both of our versions combined will make a better experience then just reading one by oneself.

Ah!  Today's mentality.  We have to do everything "NOW".  No time for planning.  Just do it!  And we all have to get to where we are going as soon as possible.

So much impatience while so much information is available.

But sure, if we know what our capabilities and capacities are we can proceed with confidence because our planned actions will be within the realm of what we know we can do.  Of course, we can't always know what might happen exterior to us so we must remain flexible.

That brings me to something I wanted to discuss. The line where Sun Tzu talks about how the Dao determines who wins and loses above all. Seems pretty important to understand! The Minford commentary suggests Dao as in way of war but you would think the Dao-Dao does above everything.

Ah!, that word "flexible".  One of my favorites.  In the TTC many translators use the word "weak" and I think that this is incorrect.  It are not the weak who survive; it are the flexible.

The grass bends in the wind saying. Maybe an oak tree can break without breaking

[Brian]

I also find Bob Sutton's work to be valuable. It is available as a free Kindle download (and perhaps in other formats).

[Marblehead]

Good. Both of our versions combined will make a better experience then just reading one by oneself.

Yeah, the more interpretations we have the better we can discuss the concepts.

 

So much impatience while so much information is available.

Hehehe.

 

That brings me to something I wanted to discuss. The line where Sun Tzu talks about how the Dao determines who wins and loses above all. Seems pretty important to understand! The Minford commentary suggests Dao as in way of war but you would think the Dao-Dao does above everything.

This is a heavy concept that even I have avoided speaking to.  I will give it a shot here.  (Refinement will likely be necessary.)

 

Oftentimes we see where it is said that Dao favors one over the other.  This is an error in the first part.  Reason:  we have personified Dao.  That, IMO, is a No, No.  Dao is not to be personified.  Christians personify Dao and call it God.

 

It is the De of Dao that (not who) determines who will win or lose.  So what is the De of Dao?  It is the natural way.  That is to say, the way of nature.  Nature never loses.  The natural way is always the way of nature.  The De of Dao are the processes of nature.

 

So, in fact, Dao has done nothing.  Dao has not determined who will win or who will lose.  It are we who determine win/lose based on whether we chose the Way of Dao or the way of man.

 

The grass bends in the wind saying. Maybe an oak tree can break without breaking

Yes, now you include the concept of strength.  So we have two dualistic concepts now:  Flexible/rigid and Strong/weak.  In my mind it are the strong and flexible who win, not the weak and rigid.

[Marblehead]

I also find Bob Sutton's work to be valuable. It is available as a free Kindle download (and perhaps in other formats).

Thanks.  I will check that out.

[woodcarver]

I also find Bob Sutton's work to be valuable. It is available as a free Kindle download (and perhaps in other formats).

Please share!

Hehehe.

Oh right, I'm one of them too.

This is a heavy concept that even I have avoided speaking to.  I will give it a shot here.  (Refinement will likely be necessary.)

 

 

 

Oftentimes we see where it is said that Dao favors one over the other.  This is an error in the first part.  Reason:  we have personified Dao.  That, IMO, is a No, No.  Dao is not to be personified.  Christians personify Dao and call it God.

 

It is the De of Dao that (not who) determines who will win or lose.  So what is the De of Dao?  It is the natural way.  That is to say, the way of nature.  Nature never loses.  The natural way is always the way of nature.  The De of Dao are the processes of nature.

 

So, in fact, Dao has done nothing.  Dao has not determined who will win or who will lose.  It are we who determine win/lose based on whether we chose the Way of Dao or the way of man.

As I suspected. Using the De concept was very helpful. I was trying to come up with a war scenario that shows this and DDJ 61 came to mind.

Yes, now you include the concept of strength.  So we have two dualistic concepts now:  Flexible/rigid and Strong/weak.  In my mind it are the strong and flexible who win, not the weak and rigid.

Yin/Yang. Darn blades of grass.

[Marblehead]

 

Yin/Yang. Darn blades of grass.

That's actually nice. 

Good thinking.

 

I must move on to other aspects of my life right now.  I'll catch up later.

[Brian]

Search the Kindle library for "sunzi" and you will find an orange-covered Public Domain "book" with the author listed as "SUNZI". It is a free edition with some interesting commentary.

 

There are also quite a few worthwhile resources online, such as http://suntzusaid.com as well as a number of discussions of applying the treatise to modern life, such as http://tweakyourbiz.com/global/2013/01/14/why-wall-street-loves-the-art-of-war-a-13-point-plan-to-mastering-business-strategy

 

I find absorbing copious data and then synthesizing works well for me as a learning methodology.

[woodcarver]

I must move on to other aspects of my life right now.  I'll catch up later.

I should follow your example!

Search the Kindle library for "sunzi" and you will find an orange-covered Public Domain "book" with the author listed as "SUNZI". It is a free edition with some interesting commentary.

 

There are also quite a few worthwhile resources online, such as http://suntzusaid.com as well as a number of discussions of applying the treatise to modern life, such as http://tweakyourbiz.com/global/2013/01/14/why-wall-street-loves-the-art-of-war-a-13-point-plan-to-mastering-business-strategy

Unfortunately I don't have a Kindle and I hate reading on my computer. I grew up a cyborg and I can't handle it anymore. I'm bookmarking the two websites however, thanks!

I find absorbing copious data and then synthesizing works well for me as a learning methodology.

I call it the learning phase, it just sounds cool

[woodcarver]

...and I see Michael silently liking posts. Please don't strike with chaos

[dust]

I'd like to become at least somewhat familiar with the text, and I'd be happy to look at the Chinese when necessary (though I realize nobody's looking for long translation discussions). Not having had the energy to get deep into the LZ or ZZ recently, I think SZ might offer some relatively 'light' study...

 

Though I know very little about the text so far, I've had a look here, and it would seem that the Giles, Gagliardi, and Ames translations all get the point across pretty well... though my preferred translation style is almost certainly found here; it is perhaps slightly less elegant than some, but seems much closer to the Chinese than any of the others.

 

As Giles's is on ctext, it offers easy comparison with Chinese; if I end up contributing further, I'd probably suggest using a combination of Giles and the Sonshi version (loyal, to the point, and also available for free online).

Edited August 6, 2015 by dustybeijing

[dust]

Ah!, that word "flexible".  One of my favorites.  In the TTC many translators use the word "weak" and I think that this is incorrect.  It are not the weak who survive; it are the flexible.

 

Yeah... it's a funny one. Looking at any dictionary, ancient or modern, 弱 is listed as weak, infirm, delicate, feeble, young, soft.

As the opposite of  强 strong (not necessarily rigid), it often seems to make most sense to translate as weak (not necessarily flexible).

 

TTC 36:      柔弱勝剛強      soft weak overcome hard strong

 

But I don't know if the modern English 'weak' does line up precisely with the word  弱 in Laozi or Sunzi's time. Their ancient Chinese  弱  probably meant any type of person who might be considered infirm, enfeebled; anyone who needed taking care of; the young, the old, the sick, the pregnant, etc. And we're talking of a kind of power, right? The power the infirm has over the robust; the power of manipulation. Just a thought...

[Michael Sternbach]

That was my first choice but it's not offered in my town

 

The organization Tai Chi World, founded by Erle Montaigue and continued by his son Eli, offers excellent, very detailed training videos that I love to work with. You can also send them a video of yourself performing for feedback and corrections. Actually, I believe that remote learning is a wonderful thing made much easier by modern technology, and while it has certain drawbacks, it does have a number of advantages as well. I won't go into this topic further as I don't want to bring this thread OT, but feel free to PM me if you wish specific information.

 

Everyone is here but I think I heard millions suddenly cry out in the force.

 

They do every time MH and I start discussing with each other.

 

All of this rings of chess, alright.

That's why I play Tetris, not so much tactics and 100% dynamic. No time to think about what to do or what you could have done. I'm telling this to a martial arts guy.

 

Thank you for the hint.

 

That took longer than it should have to click for me, I just got up from a nap I guess. Confucius would be so mad.

 

 

I want to hug that seal

 

Let's see, I got it from this website that is posted in the Yijing section of TDB: http://www.ichingonline.net/uses.php

It doesn't have a source.

 

QUOTE

Sun Tzu The great Chinese warrior, Sun Tzu was heavily influenced by the I Ching when he wrote his brilliant Art of War, 2500 years ago.

Yet he would not let his officers consult the oracle when mapping strategy.

Why?

Because his lieutenants had fallen into the same trap that threatens anyone who uses the I Ching -- they began to use it for fortune-telling.

They would look for omens.

They would cast the coins to ask what direction to march, and read only the symbolic direction.

They were not tapping their own deeper knowledge with the tool.

 

I am not sure if that story is historically accurate, but it's interesting. It's illustrating a typical problem with using oracles to this day.