So about two months ago, on about my two-year anniversary with the company, I switched from "Software Engineer" to "Solution Architect" (aka "Biz Dev Engineer"). It means that I now go to a lot of meetings (frequently with clients), where people draw on my knowledge of how our things work, and build a few things on the side. Mostly marketing material.
It's a crazy different experience from actually writing the code, and some of what I've learned and noticed has to do with "just being yourself". Part of that learning process has definitely involved being placed in high-enough stress situations that I was put off internal balance: by gaining familiarity with not being myself, I got a better idea of where myself was and how to stay centered there.
The first realization was that I could label my activities as reactive or proactive. As a software engineer, basically all my time was proactive. Now, most of my time is reactive. But... the original phrase I used to describe the reactive activities, and the way I try to approach them, is "to go be myself at things". The desired outcome is secondary to the experimental juxtaposition.
Another way to put it is, I think: I (like everybody) am a unique snowflake. The point of including me on anything and of sending me hither and yon is to have that uniqueness present and available. Well, part of the point.
It seems to be working. I think (although it's a little early to tell) that I'm more successful at this job than the last. At the least, I'm happier. Your mileage may vary.
As a final note, when applied to personal growth, I think this attitude ends up something like this: Don't aim for results, aim for experiences. Your "higher-self" (whatever that means to you) can't just rewrite your "lower-self" (the thing you're being when you're being yourself), but the former can aim the latter at particular experiences. Go find out what it's like to be yourself at that thing, and you learn a little bit about who you are and who you are changes a little bit. It's an explorative act.
Practical advice from
The way to approach this concept it to first understand your struggle. Beneath the need to struggle is a fear that the world is an unfriendly place and you are not supported. This view arises from the mind rather from the way, which teaches that the flow, the ever present essence of life, is the way. You can trust that the way will lead you. In truth, the mind-made view of the world, where struggle is necessary, is merely illusion. No matter how real it might appear. Wu Wei is the way.
To follow Wu Wei you must first let go of struggle. Stop fighting with life and trying to make things happen. You are struggling against the flow. You must first realize that you can give this up. Then it is the case that you act, you are not passive - merely waiting for things to happen, but you are no longer opposing the flow of events. Instead, you act, but let go into the uncertainty of life, and you see how life actually occurs. You become open to the mystery of which you are part. In a sense it is total acceptance of yourself and this moment. Of course, it is necessary to practice this. While the way is not of time, and we can be there in an instant, practice connects us to this place over time. Through practice the way reveals itself. Only through practice can this truth be revealed.
e.g.: Water may be directed and controlled by man-made dams, but it will always flow to its destination naturally. To be in accord with that nature, give up making dams for it only delays that flow.
Well, yes. But there are different levels of "doing." In particular, Vedantic metaphysics divides the human being into body, mind, intellect; corresponding with perceptions & actions, emotions & impulses, and rational thought, respectively.
The body finds its impetus to act from either the mind, the intellect, or a combination of both. For an action to be "perfect" (to the best of one's ability), one needs to focus the mind in the moment.
Most new-age analysis ends here, but Vedanta goes further to say that the mind naturally moves into the past (via worries) and the future (via anxieties), and that it is the intellect alone which may focus the mind in the present moment via a "higher" ideal.
"Higher", in this context, simply means that one should have a goal that goes beyond one's selfish, self-centred interest. For example, in the context of an employee, this might mean working for the sake of one's company and its betterment, rather than selfishly working solely for a paycheck.
When working thus, the set of conditions for one's own happiness become broader, and thus the mind is more easily able to focus on the present moment, rendering an action "perfect."
Of course, there's more to it than this. My guru has written entire books on the subject.
Source: Studied Vedanta for three years under A. Parthasarathy at the Vedanta Academy (http://www.vedantaworld.org)
Interesting to see mainstream news media carry such articles.
Many people in ancient India tradition delved into nature of mind, intellect, memory, ego extensively. They considered delving into this "inner world" a worthy pursuit. Vedanta which literally means "end of knowledge or final knowledge" primarily are in the Upanishad texts. They are typically discussions between teacher and students on nature of mind, intellect, ego, meditation, samadhi etc. Very interesting but best learnt under a competent teacher. The tradition is to first experience (through meditation, silence etc.) and then understanding would dawn automatically.
The Bhagavad Gita which is said to be over 5000 years old says that "wise sees inaction in action and action in inaction". Almost everyone experiences this sometimes in life.
It also talks about the wise one being skilled in both pravritti and nivritti - which broadly means ability to act hundred percent and also the ability to totally let go at appropriate times. This is considered a precious skill.
There is a vast treasure house of wisdom in the Vedantic tradition. But needs a good teacher to correctly interpret it, complemented with regular meditation, reflection etc.
Your comment reminds me a bit of the lyrics from the Tool song 'Parabola' (which I personally find a beautiful song):
So familiar and overwhelmingly warm
This one, this form I hold now.
Embracing you, this reality here,
This one, this form I hold now, so
Wide eyed and hopeful.
Wide eyed and hopefully wild.
We barely remember what came before this precious moment,
Choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside...
This body holding me, reminding me that I am not alone in
This body makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion.
Twirling round with this familiar parabol,
Spinning, waving with each new experience
recognize this as our only ?
Celebrate the chance to be
Alive and breathing
One chance to be
Alive and breathing
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside
This holy reality, this holy experience.
Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Alive, I
In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in
This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.
Twirling round with this familiar parabol.
Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. we are eternal.
all this pain is an illusion.
Don't use conscious effort to do whatever-it-is directly.
Instead, use that deliberate-brainpower to create patterns and habits that your un/sub-conscious will continue even when you aren't actively paying attention.
Is this about Analysis paralysis vs. learning by doing?
From what I understand of asian philosophy, I think the dichotomy between he Confucean and Taoist value systems is a very good mental tool - the former stresses academic learning and analysis while the latter strives for simplicity and doing what you can, right now, with the knowledge and tools you have.
To draw a caricature: The confucean systems hold the bureaucracy that keeps systems going for decades in the highest regard while a taoist would value the spontaneity of an "agile and lean" system the most.
I think the "wu wei" concept is linked to a situation where a person has an intutive understanding of a system and it's practical degrees of freedom and constraints, and thus can let his subconscious to perform most of the heavy lifting, versus a situation where for one reason or another the person does not have a lucid mental model of the field where he tries to work and proceeds through constant conscious cognitive evaluation. I might completely off in my understanding, though.
I think you can actually unify both. That is, have both a system that lasts for decades and have people move with spontaneity. The key is to disentangle the system which dictates how things fit together from people's personal lives. The system needs specific roles filled, but the people filling them don't have to be the roles themselves and further, the system itself must evolve, driven by the changes in the people that are in it.
> “I’ve been out in the fields helping the sprouts grow,” he explained, whereupon his worried sons rushed out to see the results. They found a bunch of shriveled sprouts that he’d yanked to death.
There is a fair amount of sprout yanking going on in my little education world at present. I can use that quote.
I'm sorry, I do catch the idea, but it really sounds like fluff to me. As with many of these type of articles, I see some discussion and history, but no content or true insight whatsoever. Only some anekdotes and religion-style stories.
This stigma against anecdotes itself reeks of what you seem to fear in religion. Such things are very personal, there are no hard and fast rules derivable from first principles. How we like to paint everything as simple and provable! You must try different things first hand, it is the only way to see.
Feel free not to try things yourself but do not dissuade others from finding what works for them. You do not know, in it they might find meaning.
Went to isolated island for one month to finish project and decided to relax for few weeks. 10 days of relaxation was most fruitful, but in a sense that solutions just popped up in my mind during sunbathing and doing nothing. Anyway, in one moment i saw things from new perspective with clear vision on what has to be done, and at that point things were so simple and beautiful it was easier to just rewrite from scratch.
Conciousness is overrated, subconciousness is the key - works even after working hours. It only needs will, time and little bit of work ;-)
Funny fact, didn't know anything about wu wei back then.
This is how I program. Whenever I have a difficulty, I'll put it down for a few minutes and wait for the essential insight I need to keep going filter through my subconscious. Once i learned to trust the process, I just let go.
One thing I learned doing this is that projects all seem to take a fixed length of time to emerge from your mind to the machine. You can spend most of that time fighting it or you can spend it doing whatever else you want to do while your subconscious is working on it.
Personally, I divide it between Internet, high-level 10,000 foot view thinking, and socializing around the company. Doesn't matter. Projects still get done on time. And better than if I'd been fighting it, because there's no wasted time going down wrong paths.
> Once i learned to trust the process, I just let go.
Exactly. It was really hard to digest the fact that it works, because you know everybody think faster == better, but important part of process is to have clear picture -> distinguishing between important and irrelevant == slow. Anyway, in the end you make everything faster, because you go right way from the start.
Socially, many people are trained to react and fill the gaps created by others. We fill awkward pauses in conversations with chatter. We feel compelled to do work that some other leaves unfinished.
Wu Wei is a practice designed to short circuit this action through the pursuit of conscious non-action. The main effect on everyone else is to evoke a mild state of panic or at least some uncomfortable fidgeting.
You can test this pretty easily the next time you talk to someone by saying nothing. Just leave a gap on purpose. Take no action. The person across from you will feel the pause and will most likely fill it. Sometimes, if the pause is long enough, they will fill it with personal details they would otherwise never share.
One feels drawn to a person like this because their inaction creates a gap we feel compelled to fill. This is the "charismatic" effect the author mentions in the article. In reality, it's more or less a passive aggressive technique to get people to do your work for you through willful negligence.
I strongly disagree. Is this just your personal idea, or can you point me to anyone or anything making similar claims, especially any research? Many charismatic leaders, including most religious ones actually produce a sense of calmness.
Calling it passive-agressive is not helpful either. Too many things already get reduce to that one.
The success of this tactic will depend on how much power you currently have in relation to others. If you are a wallflower or extremely shy, choosing to remain silent will only serve to disempower you further. If you do have a lot of social anxiety, your first priority should be to practice taking social initiative rather than remaining silent. Because unless you have some type of social status, people may rarely take initiative with you.
I think we all understand this at a simple, pragmatic level. For example, we all want to become so comfortable with the keyboard that when we think of the variable "bar" our hands automatically type it. I read the point of the article as saying that this applies at higher and higher levels of function as well: if we make things automatic we can spend more time thinking about and accomplishing the higher goals. And as the article mentions flow, again, I think we all know this to some degree.
And I was amused, if not surprised, to see that the confucianist writers had twisted this to support obedience to the power structure. We're lucky Plato had never heard of them!
All narratives about enlightenment contain a form of letting go. Zazen, Koan. Siddartha and his quest etc. I read a book years ago from a French guy who suggested that this could be reached by writing meaningless sentences, which he made a long winding point is more difficult than it seems. I guess one can look at Azimov's A guy like that too.
What it says, apparently, is that there is a reality behind all this. The human mind does have the ability to make qualitative jumps.
We just need to get rid of the travail first...
As far as I understand, sprezzatura is a demonstrated skill that requires training and choosing good circumstances to demonstrate, like magic tricks in a circus. At least so it seems from its courtier-related usage. That it, sprezzatura is an ability to hide an effort, while the article says more about not exerting the effort, or at least not doing it consciously.
It's a crazy different experience from actually writing the code, and some of what I've learned and noticed has to do with "just being yourself". Part of that learning process has definitely involved being placed in high-enough stress situations that I was put off internal balance: by gaining familiarity with not being myself, I got a better idea of where myself was and how to stay centered there.
The first realization was that I could label my activities as reactive or proactive. As a software engineer, basically all my time was proactive. Now, most of my time is reactive. But... the original phrase I used to describe the reactive activities, and the way I try to approach them, is "to go be myself at things". The desired outcome is secondary to the experimental juxtaposition.
Another way to put it is, I think: I (like everybody) am a unique snowflake. The point of including me on anything and of sending me hither and yon is to have that uniqueness present and available. Well, part of the point.
It seems to be working. I think (although it's a little early to tell) that I'm more successful at this job than the last. At the least, I'm happier. Your mileage may vary.
As a final note, when applied to personal growth, I think this attitude ends up something like this: Don't aim for results, aim for experiences. Your "higher-self" (whatever that means to you) can't just rewrite your "lower-self" (the thing you're being when you're being yourself), but the former can aim the latter at particular experiences. Go find out what it's like to be yourself at that thing, and you learn a little bit about who you are and who you are changes a little bit. It's an explorative act.