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.

1. ^{^}

   Released in 2024, you can buy it here. It has been well received!

2. ^{^}

   For example, Atomic Habits is a widely recommended self-help book.

3. ^{^}

   For example, companies preach the value of Thinking Big and venture capital models Black Swan Farming.