The Power of "Not-Doing"
by JoyToday Karen Armstrong had another article published in the op-ed section of The Guardian newspaper, entitled The Power of Forgetting, in which she talks about how to get through a long intercontinental flight without liquids to drink or books, laptops, iPods, or computer games to occupy one's mind.
Some of you will recall the little flap a few weeks ago (and a total of four blogs here about it), when in Armstrong's last article for The Guardian she put someone else's pilfered quote into Paul Nelson's mouth. She has not apologized, retracted or explained this error, and The Guardian has not issued a correction. Perhaps we should "forget," which Armstrong tells us in this new article is necessary in order to accept life in a world controlled by Islamic terrorists.
This time Armstrong talks about the Daoist principle of wu wei (doing nothing) as an approach to living with the restrictions and fears of a terrorist-controlled world. Silence our minds and listen to what our enemies have to say, so we can change ourselves -
At this terrifying juncture of history, we have to be ready to "forget" - to start from scratch and experience the frightening void of unknowing.
…If we are to break the deadly cycle of escalating violence - of strike and counter-strike, atrocity and enraged reaction - we must listen intently to what everybody, even our enemy, is saying, and be sincerely ready to let it change us: to get beyond the rhetoric, decode the imagery, and hear the subtext of rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred and despair.
News for Armstrong: terrorists don't rule my world. Their rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred and despair do not give them power enough to force my submission. Neither terrorists nor those whose world is controlled by terrorists need my understanding or my submission. Though if I must fly from here to there I can suspend my world without submitting to theirs - and spend the time creatively. It's called Not-Doing (as opposed to "forgetting") and it only works if you're not afraid.
In Carlos Castenada's book Journey to Ixtlan [1972] Yaqui Sorcerer Don Juan teaches Carlos about not-doing. In Don Juan's world, not-doing is a purposeful practice, part of a triad of perceptual 'tricks' which include stopping the world and seeing.
Alan Gullette describes the arts thusly:
Don Juan says: "The most difficult part of the warrior's way is to realize that the world is a feeling. When one is not-doing, one is feeling the world." (The warrior is the existential man striving to be a man of knowledge.) Feeling is done with the body "“ it is like seeing, "responding to the perceptual solicitations of a world outside" the paradigm (xiv). The three techniques of not-doing, stopping the world, and seeing seem to be very close in actuality; it is the difficulty of understanding them which makes them into separate stages in the process of de-conditioning to face the unconditioned. The feeling that is the world would seem to be a single perception and not divided among the traditionally distinguished sense organs.
Such talents would seem to come quite naturally to a synesthete, and they do. In fact, much of the luck I've had teaching non-synesthetes to perceive synesthetically (an interesting bit of research, ongoing) is attributable to my reading many years ago of Castenada's Don Juan series, as these are the very techniques I teach. Yet whenever the synesthetic percept is finally achieved by a student, what I hear every time is that it's "remembering," not "forgetting."
Gullette brings the analysis home in a way Armstrong's forgetful submission to fear does not:
Power is an important concept in don Juan's philosophy The summary given earlier of the philosophy stresses seeing. This is interpretive. Another, briefer sketch of the philosophy follows in which the concept of power is stressed. With this alternative approach, not-doing and stopping the world are also seen to relate to each other. Don Juan's existential man, the warrior, lives strategically, for he knows his life is in his own hands and he is completely free and complete responsible. To avoid being hunted himself, he lives like a hunter, and he needs power over situations in order to carry out his strategies. Not-doing is the first step toward accumulating power. Once he has stored power, the warrior becomes a man of knowledge, and enough power will enable him to stop the word and see.
I think I like Don Juan's version better than Armstrong's. It's more creative, of more practical use. The 'warrior' turns knowledge into an act of will so overwhelming that it's unrecognizable as will, but is identical with life. Armstrong's passive listener would turn away from knowledge into "forgetting" - submission to the will of others, so that we may change ourselves into whatever the 'other' wants us to be.
I admit it - I have no desire or particular reason to change - or "forget" - just because terrorists control the world Armstrong lives in. When I fly I'll pack away the toothpaste and shampoo. I'll go thirsty until they come around with the soft drinks. I'll walk through the metal detector, I'll run my purse through the X-ray machine, I might even let 'em pat me down if they think I'm dangerous. That's what is required of me when I must fly on a machine that belongs to Armstrong's world.
There is no power in forgetting. The power comes from seeing. It's a change of focus. "Shadows are 'the doors of not-doing'" Gullette tells us. One cannot see the tiger by looking at tall blades of grass swaying in the breeze. One sees the tiger because the shadows are still.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
LOL!! The symbolism is downright hilarious. In her next article for the Guardian of Misinformation, the ID critic preaches about the virtues of forgettting.
Comment by MikeGene — August 20, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
August 20th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
You would think Karen Armstrong views IDists as enemies based on her writings. So maybe by listening intently to them, while being sincerely ready to allow what IDists say to change her, she can get beyond the rhetoric without having to apologize for it.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 10:11 am
In the "Journalists who don't correct their errors" dept. I came across a bit of it myself over at UD, where Denyse O'Leary made a claim that wasn't true. I registered at the site and posted, pointing out the error. So far, I haven't seen my post (I think the moderation is pretty heavy-handed over there), nor has O'Leary retracted or corrected her claim.
So, shouldn't O'Leary be held to the same "high" standard of journalistic integrity as Armstrong?
Anywho, I've always liked Sylvia Boorstein's quote (at least I think it's hers):
"Don't just do something, sit there!"
(A call to mindful awareness within the Buddhist tradition)
Comment by takuan — August 21, 2006 @ 10:11 am
August 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am
takuan
What was the alleged error?
Comment by chunkdz — August 21, 2006 @ 11:10 am
August 21st, 2006 at 11:23 am
Takuan:
It depends if O'Leary's sins are as great as Armstrong's. The Guardian is a far, far more widely read site than UD (something we have documented already). This is a significant distinction, as the misinformation spread by Armstrong has not only been picked up by far more people, but her nutty essay has also been widely circulated over many other internet sites.
Second, did O'Leary take a statement off some obscure web page and then act as if someone else said it?
Comment by MikeGene — August 21, 2006 @ 11:23 am
August 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I've found from experience that the New Testament's teaching, "Perfect love casts out fear," is true. Not that I have ever come close to loving perfectly. But I have found that when I pray for blessings on people that I fear, suddenly the fear is gone. I don't think that this means that we must accept whatever our enemies want to do to us. But once we love them, and no longer fear them, we are able to deal with them and the situation rationally, instead of out of fear and hatred.
Comment by Bilbo — August 21, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
To chunkdz:
You can see for yourself… I just checked, and my comment is there! O'Leary's original comment is still there, too"”unretracted and uncorrected (except by me) as far as I can tell.
To Mike:
Does it depend? As I see it, whether you steal a candy bar or a million bucks, stealing is stealing. I'd think a journalist, whether Armstrong or O'Leary, would CHECK first before attributing a quote or suggesting something's a "screed" (when it's not). In O'Leary's case, we KNOW she's computer savvy (she runs a blog, right?), so how difficult can it be to Google a book synopsis?
To Bilbo:
Couldn't have said it any better.
Comment by takuan — August 21, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 7:56 pm
You can see for yourself"¦ I just checked, and my comment is there! O'Leary's original comment is still there, too"”unretracted and uncorrected (except by me) as far as I can tell.
Takuan, please specify which post you commented on.
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 8:27 pm
takuan:
??? I get two definitions of "screed" from my dictionary: 1. A long speech or piece of writing, one typically regarded as tedious. 2. A leveled layer of material (e.g., cement) applied to a floor or other surface.
Since I do not think O'Leary was talking about cement on the floor when she characterized the piece in question as a "shrill screed," I fail to see the problem. The UD site is apparently down or overloaded so I can't get there right now, but you ask in this post how difficult it is to Google a book synopsis. So the "screed" in question is a piece of writing - a book. You suggest a synopsis, meaning it's probably long and too tedious to read (or you wouldn't suggest a synopsis). I don't know if it's "shrill," but if that's O'Leary's impression it's her impression.
Opinion is not the same thing as a deliberate (or even negelectful) fabrication, and the attempt to equate them is… pitiful. It won't work.
Let's say you're a famous expert on tofu and you work for the International Tofu Council giving promotional speeches and writing tofu cookbooks. I think tofu is the foulest, nastiest, ugliest fake food on the planet, so think you're totally full of it. You could vehemently disagree with me, but that wouldn't make me wrong. It's just my opinion - I hate tofu.
But if I went looking for the absolutely nastiest put-down of tofu ever written by any tofu hater on the planet, then published in a major international newspaper that YOU PERSONALLY wrote it, that would be a deliberately fabricated lie that is legally actionable as libel if it causes any harm to your career or reputation as a tofu spokesperson.
A five-year old can tell the difference between an opinion and a lie, so I figure you can too.
Comment by Joy — August 21, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Sorry, Bradford, UD doesn't seem to be opening for me at the moment"”O'Leary's original post was about how books titled "Why (insert this or that here) Matter" somehow means they don't. Or something.
By the way, an earlier, different (and, I might add, very politely worded) comment I made about another of her posts hasn't shown up, while the comment referenced above ONLY showed up there AFTER said comment was referenced here"”a little interblog communique, perhaps? Oh, the intrigue!
Comment by takuan — August 21, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Oh, for Heaven's sake, Joy. You seem to be making assumptions that simply have no bearing upon the matter because you don't know the facts. Then you castigate me on the basis of those false assumptions. Phooey!
(Incidentally, you might try mabudofu sometime. Really quite good, and a dandy meat substitute.)
Comment by takuan — August 21, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 10:49 pm
takuan:
Oh, for heaven's sake, takuan! I finally was able to go skim a few threads and found your post. It was part of an argument that books about what matters matter. To challenge O'Leary's argument that if people need to be told Darwinism matters, it doesn't matter.
The counter-argument is pretty good, but it looks pretty tedious to me as I skimmed it going on and on. But then, if I think three threads worth of over and over on opinions about what matters ARE tedious, I could call the collection a screed. There's no lie, and no mischaracterization or misrepresentation. There is just opinion.
There's a big difference between a difference of opinion and attributing a lifted quote from some obscure website (that you lifted just because it's outrageous) and put it into the mouth of someone who never said or wrote any such thing. If you honestly can't see that, there's just no help for it.
Comment by Joy — August 21, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Huh? Que? Nani? I think I'd better exercise my own "Power of Not-Doing" and (as Miss Jane Austen herself might counsel) "Save my breath to cool my porridge!"
(Really, mabudofu might be just the thing!)
Comment by takuan — August 21, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Perhaps.
Or, then again, it well expresses the "conservative" disinclination to join "liberals" in worshiping change-for-changes-sake. Though, we might express it as "Don't just do something, stand there!"
edit: Doesn't the "Buddhist tradition" *deny* that we actually exist? (It does, so don't anyone bother saying it doesn't). So, how can one *rationally* speak of "mindful awareness within the Buddhist tradition?" One can't, of course. Not that that bothers the adherents of a tradition built up of paradox (i.e. self-contradiction).
Comment by Ilion — August 22, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
"It doesn't!"
"It does!"
"It doesn't!"
"It does!"
"It doesn't!"
GROUCHO TO CAMERA: "You realize they could go on like this all night."
"Does!"
"Doesn't!"
"Does!"
"Doesn't!"
…
Comment by takuan — August 22, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Takaun:
Sure. Look, if I have darn good reason to think my neighbor stole a candy bar out of my kitchen after visiting, I'm not the type of person who is going to knock on his door and confront my neighbor about a stupid candy bar. On the other, if we're talking about my wallet and not a candy bar, then yes, I will confront my neighbor.
Huh? Whether something is considered a screed is largely a judgment call that depends on the person making the judgment. It is not a judgment call when it comes to whether it was wrong to put words into Paul Nelson's mouth for the widely read Guardian.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 10:11 pm