Small Steps vs. Big Steps
I’m reading a new translation of the Zhuangzi by Professor Chris Fraser[1], loving it, and noticing a few pieces of wisdom that I feel reflect deep truth and also run counter to some Western ideologies and existing frameworks that I have.
One such piece of wisdom — to take small steps instead of big steps — perhaps already has decent consensus in modern society[2] but I posit that it is not broadly accepted[3] and that the Zhuangzi presents an unconventional derivation of this conclusion.
Two core concepts as a precursor to the rest of this post, in Fraser’s words:
The ‘Way’ (dào) is the core structural concept in early Chinese thought, standing at the centre of various questions regarding the content and direction of the good life, the relation between human life and ‘heaven’, or the natural world, and the very nature of norms or a normative ‘path’.
Psycho-physiological equilibrium, including emotional equanimity, is a hallmark of what the texts call dé, here translated as ‘Virtue’, but also interpretable as ‘virtuosity’ or ‘agentive power’. Virtue can be thought of as our capacity for following Ways; it is the power inherent in things, including agents, by which we do what we do.
Book 4 of the Zhuangzi “The World among Humanity” touches on a few themes including “Virtue (agency) over knowledge”.
Confucius says:
Don’t make the Way too complicated. If it’s complicated, there’s too much to do; if there’s too much to do, it’s confusing; if it’s confusing, you get anxious; if you get too anxious, you can’t save yourself.
The ultimate people of old first attained it themselves and only then helped others attain it. Before you’ve firmly attained it yourself, what leisure do you have to attend to the conduct of a tyrant? Moreover, do you indeed understand what makes Virtue dissipate and knowledge emerge? Virtue is dissipated by making a name, and knowledge emerges from conflict. Names prompt mutual strife; knowledge is a tool of conflict. Both are sinister tools, not how to perfect conduct.
Fraser comments on this:
‘Virtue’ is conceptually paired with dào; to act by Virtue is to conform to dào, and the dào of nature is ultimately the source of the Virtue within us … Here ‘Virtue’ contrasts with ‘knowledge’ in a pejorative sense, referring to cunning or wiliness.
To a rationalist this raises alarm bells! Knowledge is used pejoratively?!
Rationality does guide against big-picture ideas clouding your ability to maintain curiosity, but wouldn’t go as far as calling knowledge a “sinister tool”.
Knowledge being a “tool of conflict” is a powerful concept — what else is a conflict if not some in-group fighting their out-group on a differing basis of knowledge?
Putting this idea into action
Suppose you believe that some great injustice is happening in some foreign place. You see news of suffering, you empathise and recognise the humanity in those suffering, and you see stasis or indifference from world powers.
If you hold these ideas in your mind, you feel sadness, anger, and powerlessness.
The “big step” in this case feels like holding this knowledge front-of-mind and yelling about the injustice from the rooftops, rallying everyone that you know to stand up for what is right, and speaking truth to power so that your voice is heard.
The “small step” in this case feels like acknowledging that this injustice is happening, but instead having your agentive power front-of-mind. You stay deeply perceptive to the world immediately available to you and act accordingly. Maybe your friend tells you about a meet-up they are going to regarding the conflict, so you attend. Maybe at the meeting, you speak with someone who has a friend in local government, and suggest raising the issue to them. Maybe this local government official sends a letter to their colleagues for additional signatories, etc.
Suppose that both Person A — whose mind is dominated by the facts of the injustice — and Person B — whose mind is dominated by a desire to be mindful, virtuous, and perceptive in life — both attend a march that is raising awareness of the injustice. Both people are acting in the same way, but I would suggest that Person B is more likely to be successful in contributing towards resolving the injustice: they will be more receptive to new information provided at the march, and able to engage and connect with other attendees better.
That is to say that acting on what is available to you and taking small steps is a win-win: you will be happier by way of living more harmoniously with your local environment (and the world, universe, or Way), and you will be more successful towards your goals in contrast to the turmoil inherent in grappling with some larger step.
The nuance here is that knowledge is separated from agency, which itself relies on having a strong mental framework. If you have no knowledge and no mental framework, then you will simply be manipulated by the agency of others.
However, if you abstract yourself from knowledge but retain a strong mental framework, then you are channelling open-mindedness and able to act with poise and agility — in harmony with the universe, step-by-step.
- ^
Released in 2024, you can buy it here. It has been well received!
- ^
For example, Atomic Habits is a widely recommended self-help book.
- ^
For example, companies preach the value of Thinking Big and venture capital models Black Swan Farming.
Why does differing knowledge necassarily cause conflict? I suppose if you lack strategic information, you might make a strategic mistake, (as I’ve heard applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or when young male grizzlies don’t know their place and start trying to assert themselves over obviously superior opponents). But I don’t see justification for the general case and I think it’s wrong.
I think conflict is caused by goals that conflict.
I want more land, you have more land. Give it to me, I’m not asking. Why are you resisting? Is there something you don’t understand?
I’m working on a much larger post[1] in which I discuss a concept I find very interesting: “the tension between truth-seeking and societal harmony”.
I state that “authentically expressing what you feel to be true creates tension if it doesn’t match societal norms”.
I believe we can build on this to answer:
If I have a basis of knowledge that causes me to believe idea X, and you have a basis of knowledge that causes you to believe alternative idea Y, then simply through our intrinsic goal to express ourselves authentically will tension (conflict) emerge.
Even if we are total pacifists, my intrinsic goal for there to be truth in the universe will clash with yours. As I’m listening to you express idea Y, I’ll be displeased[2] by the fact that your alternative truth is being expressed instead of my truth.
My writing tends towards that style which impacts its sharability/virality… unlike this post which is more bite-size. I’m actively working to figure out how I can maintain the longer style while making it accessible… possibly by making video versions of my writing.
This can be marginal, but I believe it is always non-zero. Even if I’m fully at peace with hearing contrasting opinions as I work to improve my world model, the extent to which I disagree will feed into my displeasure.
Thanks for your reply. I have some more questions.
I think the claim you make in this comment is that differences in [author’s definition] is sufficient to cause conflict. But I took your post to imply it was necessary.
But that’s not what you intended me to think? You’re thinking about a particular kind of conflict, not about humans generally hurting each other?
terminology: what is a “basis of knowledge”? Is it “things a person knows” or maybe “epistemics”?
How attached are you to the terminology you’re using? We have “map and territory” to discuss how people can disagree without having to say “alternative truth” (which smells). It almost seems like the conflicts you refer to are about map-territory confusion itself!
I am saying that I think that conflict or tension is necessary in cases of differing knowledge, i.e it is always non-zero. I could have caused some confusion with my loose use of the word conflict.
When I said “Knowledge being a “tool of conflict” is a powerful concept”, here I was using (or more specifically interpreting from the Zhuangzi) conflict loosely to mean a non-zero amount of tension.
When I said “What else is a conflict if not some in-group fighting their out-group on a differing basis of knowledge?”, here I was implying conflict in the more specific case of a battle/clash… while not caring about the sleight-of-hand since I think it holds in the general case too.
The former — I’m following its use in the Zhuangzi where “knowledge (zhī)” is distinct from “Virtue/agency (dé)” which is distinct from “mindset / mental framework (xīn)”. By “basis of knowledge” I mean a collection of things a person knows.
Somewhat attached. I use world-model instead of map, and reality instead of territory. My “truth” is my expression of my world-model (map) to you through the lens of my self-model. I think your “alternative truth” is your expression of your world-model through the lens of your self-model.
This is intentionally relativistic — we both have our own idea of truth, and there also exists a separate objective truth.
Thanks for clarifying! that terminology seems clear now I’ve seen it spelled out