Embracing the Middle
Originally published March 6, 2020.
Anybody who has listened to my lectures on classical Chinese philosophy (or read some of the other blog posts here) knows how much I love Zhuangzi and his resistance to categorizing, to putting things in boxes, to assigning value to this but not to that, and to see the world in black and white, right and wrong, this and that. I got my PhD in the age of postmodernism, especially in the Department of Anthropology, where I learned to question any statement of “fact” and historical account by weighing the author’s agenda and bias. As the profession of Chinese medicine is now producing ever increasing numbers of “doctors” who boldly issue statements of “fact” and “truth” with the authority of that title as soon as they graduate, I fear that we may lose one of my most treasured attributes of Chinese medicine, namely its insistence on multiple simultaneous truths and the need for humility and “bafflement” (see my previous blog here) in light of the infinite ever-changing complexity of the cosmos.
An article by Francois Jullien on “Did Philosophers Have to Become Fixated on the Truth” makes the important point that our Western pursuit of the Truth in philosophical discourse, aimed at refuting another position to prove the rightness of our own, may not be the highest form of knowledge. Instead of pursuing truth in the polarized land of right and wrong, the sage aims for the wisdom of impartiality, which allows her to respond nimbly to whatever the situation requires in the moment, to surrender to the dynamic force of the Dao and position herself in alignment with the cosmic pendulum of yin and yang. There may even be some insight here that can apply to our current political situation in the US, where Democrats and Republicans are more polarized than ever and where even within each party the chasm between moderates and radicals, between Bernie Bros and Biden pragmatists on the left, and between Trumpists and “Republicans for the rule of law” on the right, threatens to tear the country and communities further and further apart. Maybe it’s time for some sages’ wisdom over philosophers’ truth?
I am reminded here that it is time to revisit my old friend, the Confucian philosopher Mengzi 孟子 (or in the latinized form “Mencius”). Plus it’s an excuse to procrastinate doing my taxes, while I wait for the final review of my forthcoming book, Channeling the Moon, Part Two. Here is a simple quote by Mengzi (盡心上) that I very much appreciate:
楊子取為我，拔一毛而利天下，不為也。墨子兼愛，摩頂放踵利天下，為之。
子莫執中，執中為近之，執中無權，猶執一也。所惡執一者，為其賊道也，舉一而廢百也。
Yangzi chooses acting on his own behalf, which means that if he could benefit all Under Heaven by pulling out even a single hair, he still would not do it. Mozi practices universal love, which means that if he had to rub himself raw from the top of the head to the heel of the foot to benefit Under Heaven, he would still do it.
Zimo embraces the middle, which brings him closer. However, embracing the middle without expediently adapting to circumstances is still a form of embracing a single position. The reason why I dislike embracing a single position is because it strong-arms the Dao and because it elevates a single position and dismisses a hundred others.
