💾 Archived View for siiky.srht.site › philosophy › flexibility-life.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 15:48:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
@siiky
2022/06/01
2022/07/28
To be able to withstand the punches life throws at you, being flexible is helpful, methinks. It allows you to focus on what matters to you, overlook what doesn't, and dodge them punches like a pro. Not only that, but you can more easily experiment with things and try to find what works best. "If you don't have the room to fail, you only have the room to remain" (if it almost rhymes it's true, amirite?)
Let me try to explain what I mean.
From my very limited knowledge of Chinese philosophy and martial arts philosophy, before anything else, what you need most is flexibility (DISCLAIMER: I'm neither student nor practitioner).
From the Tao Te Ching, the main takeaway I got is that you'll have a hard time if you go against nature -- certainly harder than if you go along it. If you're lucky (or maybe strong enough?) that's all it will be, harder; more likely, however, you'll simply lose.
Thus, from my (very likely wrong and/or incomplete) understanding, the Tao is to go with nature, accept nature, go with the flow, accept things as they are and that they're rarely as you'd prefer them to be, that what happens through your course of life will happen whether you like it or not, and that often you have no say in it -- what will be, will be (this isn't some "fate" BS or hard determinism, though it may sound like it the way I put it; more at the end).
A similar idea exists in Tai Chi boxing, where you don't fight your opponent with force, but by trying to deflect their attacks, using their nature against them.
And what better way is there to "go with the flow" than by being flexible in your moves and in your mind?
More practically (but not necessarily by the Tao) I think of it as avoiding unnecessary (unnatural) imposed limits or goals; or as distilling what I really enjoy from what I don't (as much). So that I may focus on what matters to me most without getting overly lost on "trivialities".
For example, some decades ago someone declared that "one must eat every 3h~4h and must not go many hours without eating" (I can't remember who nor why; have to research). Similarly, someone once declared that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day and therefore must also be the heaviest/fullest" (this one I do remember: Kellogg's and some bacon company). I purposefully say "declared" because this wasn't the result of a scientific study or some other method.
Saying a bunch of bullshit nobody pays heed to is quite alright -- no harm done, right? The problem is that these "truths" are actually accepted as truths in (at least some of) today's western society!
Let's imagine some scenarios:
I'm not talking here about people that starve. I'm assuming you're skipping only one, maybe two meals at most. Actually starving is serious, and I'm not trying in any way to downplay its seriousness!
If you don't believe in any of the declared crap, all's fine, you just go on with your day, in any of the 3 scenarios. But what if you do believe it?
In (1) and (2), what's actually worse for your health: the fact that you haven't eaten, or that you're stressing because you believe it's bad you haven't eaten (whether you feel hungry or not)?
In (1), what's worse: the fact that you haven't eaten, or that you're stressing because you feel hungry?
In (3) whatever food you have is arguably unnecessary -- your body didn't feel it necessary, at least. It may simply be extra food to make you fatter.
And particulars matter, of course. If you do hard physical work, skipping a meal may be enough to have you pass out after a while. But many people nowadays don't. And many (me included) eat tons of food. Food that they don't need. For them, skipping a meal or even two, as long as they don't feel ill/weak because of it, is very likely OK.
This deviated a bit... To get back on track: in these scenarios, is the food what really matters? This is possibly the most important question. I argue that it isn't: you can survive the scenarios after all, and easily at that! On top of it, there's nothing you can do right now to improve the situation.
So what do you think the better use of your energy is: worrying about something you can easily survive, or worrying about or enjoying something else that matters to you, something you like, something you want?
I also realize that it may not feel easy, especially when you're feeling hungry; and that worrying more "productively" may not come naturally to you -- the opposite may be the case. But it is possible to train yourself. It is possible to condition yourself, distract yourself from that (easily survivable) unpleasant feeling. We weren't raised up thus. In western society we learn that splurging is the way. And so we do. Then it feels uneasy when we can't, like it shouldn't be possible. We simply haven't learned how to deal with it.
To try to exemplify how being free of these self-restrains gives you the needed freedom to experiment, I'll go with food again (I don't know why, it's just what's popping into my head).
If you go traveling, you should try to enjoy the place as much as possible while you're still there -- this should be obvious?
Let's say that you plan a walk at this place that may be completely unknown to you. You found some guides or whatever, you decided to go here and there, and you marked possible food stops (like restaurants or cafes).
Alas! The guides were outdated and the food places are closed! Quick! What do you do?
Should have been easy if you read it all thus far: ¯\__(ツ)_/¯ go with it, no big deal, it's not a showstopper! Carry on with your plan, visit what other places you planned to visit. Enjoy them as much as you would weren't the food places closed. After the walk you can be sure you'll enjoy the food even more.
The alternatives I can think of are, to continue with the rest of the plan but be stuck with "oh no, I have no food!", thus not enjoying the walk; or to abort the rest of the plan to go for food instead. Shit alternatives if you ask me...
This is getting long enough, but finally: no, the Tao isn't an excuse to sit back and watch the time go by, and indeed, I'm in favor of the opposite. So why do I think it's, as I described it at the top, not just some "fate" BS or hard determinism?
Because it isn't about what's gonna happen in the future. In no way does the Tao say that nature is the determining force of the future; or that if you do this thing that thing will happen. Only that things have an innate nature, a pre-disposition, a way of behaving and acting that feels right, if you will, for both animate and inanimate entities; and that you should try to learn of that way, both yours and your environment's, and how best they can coexist and/or cooperate.
The best practical example I can think of is physics. It certainly is easier to let gravity do its thing than to go against it -- ever tried jumping and remaining in the air? Not that easy, right? But if you don't go against it, ever, you'll go nowhere. On the flip side of the coin, if you feel so strongly against it that you can only brood over it, you'll also go nowhere, it'll be miserable. Thus, the way (Tao means "way" or "path", by the way) is through the middle ground, where you and your surroundings can meet.
Little side-note: in my view, this is one of the ideas that lead me to believe the best way of life is the one that ruffles leaves the least (in number and ruffled-ness). With regards to the planet specifically, I think that we should be striving to the best of our abilities not to screw it.
And that's that. I spent a good workday of time on this, totally worth it! Feels like I beat a dead horse a bit, though... :/