spirit :: essays | projects | questions | media |
 |
 |
jet's philosophy
I began to be interested in philosophy around the age of 16. Why? Well, here I was with all these medals for wushu in several different categories. People kept calling me the "All-round Wushu Champion of China." In Chinese, they were literally referring to me as: "all-capable." I thought I should live up to my title. If I was going to be truly all-capable, I would have to know everything. All I had to do was to learn what I didn't already know. As soon as I started learning, though, I realized I didn't know anything. "So I'm not all-around," I said to myself. "I'm not well-rounded enough." Now I knew there was a lot that I was not yet capable of--a lot I hadn't yet mastered.
Instead of learning everything, I decided, perhaps I should just start with wushu. Actually, there are just two main branches of wushu: the external and internal schools. As soon as you start getting into the details, you find that each style has its own theory. And as you chase down theory of each style back to its origin, you discover: to understand wushu, you have to begin not from the body--but from the mind. You have to understand how this earth came into being. Where the cosmos came from. How all that evolved into the "ten thousand things"--the natural phenomena that we know today. Then you realize that that process of evolution is more than just a mathematical exercise. In fact, the relations between people, between societies, governments, armies, philosophies...none of it falls outside of this pattern. All of it can be understood within this frame. You know that Chinese saying, "one insight, a hundred applications"? What it meant to me was that I could use this theory to analyze politics, economics, anything. That's when you realize that wushu not only benefits my body, but my life, my way of thinking, etc.
Daoists say: the world is empty. But what comes before this emptiness, or lack? Before absence, there must be existence. "Thing" comes before "nothing." Who could have created emptiness? Only somebody who knew what it meant to be full. Only after people "have" can they create a term for its opposite, "not having." Plentitude precedes deprivation...and follows it as well. Have, not have, have, not have...soon the back and forth between being and non-being creates a circle! And the circle is called taiji.
This is the basic principle. In the beginning, there is wuji, or absolute neutrality. Only from nothing is it possible for something to arise. Once you have, you have a circle. Then the circle becomes taiji. Taiji is nothing more than yin/yang. Everything comes in pairs--male/female, heaven/earth, mental/physical, hard/soft, fat/thin...and they are all balanced. Look at the yin/yang symbol. At its most primitive, it's just a male embryo and a female embryo. It really doesn't matter what the shape of the symbol is, as long as it is half/half. One part yin, one part yang. Heaven/earth, male/female, big/small...what are these called in English? Dichotomies? Opposites? Anyway, they always come in pairs. They are always dual. Because nothing in nature is complete unto itself. The most beautiful flower may bloom exquisitely for a while, but within a few days it will wither and die. Nothing is perfect, or permanent. This is what Chinese culture says: if something were perfect, there would be no taiji. For every good, there is bad, and vice versa. Balance.
It all depends on how you look at things--your perspective. If you are looking at yang from yin's point of view, yang will seem very good, or very bad. Because that is the angle you're seeing from. From yang's standpoint, yin will look very different. All difference comes down to degree, not substance. Take trees, for example. We have a big tree and a small tree. The smaller tree bears less fruit and the bigger tree can provide us with more nourishment, but they're both trees. It's just a matter of size. Air is air, but people make differentiations between "good air" and "bad air." Fresh air is "better" because it is constituted by a higher percentage of breathable air. Now, is smog really "worse," or does it just contain a lower percentage of clean air? Its essence--its "air-ness"--doesn't change; it's just a matter of degree. Another example: I'm a person, you're a person. Both of us make money. One of us makes more. But neither of us is any less of a person because of that difference. Or take happiness. Buying a small computer makes you happy, but maybe I need a powerful Pentium to call myself truly content. The quality of satisfaction is the same, but the means of getting there is quantitatively different. Maybe Bill Gates has a much higher set of demands in order for him to feel happy. The difference lies in degree.
