Holism and Four-Fold Thought

I thought about how to describe four-fold thought using holistic semantics. You can't reduce four-fold thought to components. It loses its impact. Only by stretching from one-fold to four-fold can you create the right emphasis.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

What is Four-Fold Thought?

I tried to find references for you. I heard about this idea when I studied William Blake in college. No one explained it to me, so I guessed. I like what I guessed.

If you look at the taijitu (the yin and yang symbol) you will see four folds. So four-fold thought may be taoist.

What are the Four Folds?

In the taijitu, the large white region and the white eye in the black region comprise one fold.

The large black region and the black eye in the white region also comprise one fold.

The whole image taken together makes a second fold.

If you only see the borders between black and white, and the borders have no color, you see a third fold.

If you know the taijitu does not exist or mean anything, you have the fourth fold.

Four-Fold Thought and Numbers

I realized I could explain four-fold thought using numbers. I'll use the number two.

One-Fold Thought and the Number Two

If you have one-fold thought, you say, "Two is a single number. The only thing that means two is 'two' itself. Nothing else means 'two.'"

I think most people move past one-fold thought on abstract concepts like "two." One-fold thought grips us more when it involves things we need.

"I need to eat now."

"They are terrorists. Terrorists are evil. We must destroy evil. We must destroy them. They must die."

Two-Fold Thought and the Number Two

If you have two-fold thought, you say, "I can make two many different ways. I will choose to make the number two however I want to at the moment."

1 + 1
2
two
zwei
number of eyes on a person's face

I think most people find two-fold thought sufficient. If you can create a dualism, you can rank things. You may have a huge, theoretically infinite, set. Still you can find a "good enough" threshold. Above that, you have the "good stuff." Below it live representations you rejected. You still admit they have meaning, just not good meaning.

Two-fold thought equals dualism. It means conflict. Even if it comes to harmony, the harmony fidgets in a state of unstable equilibrium. The slightest push makes it tumble.

Two-fold thought prevails over most of our thinking. Mostly we accept that bad things exist; we just try to avoid them. If we obliterated them for sake of survival, that would be one-fold thought.

"I need to eat, but I want spaghetti, not a hamburger."

"They think they can fight a war by murdering people. We will probably kill innocent people too if we fight back. But fighting back feels better than sitting still and taking it."

Three-Fold Thought and the Number Two

If you have three-fold thought, you say, "The concept of 'two' admits all references. Just as we have infinite ways to represent it, we have infinite ways to limit it, and infinite ways for it to represent other symbolic structures."

Now you're getting very esoteric.

I think most people do not have three-fold thought. Three-fold thought transcends utility. It stretches into possibility. It seeks a special kind of harmonious equilibrium - not a peak but a saddle point.

I think, because three-fold thought rejects dualism, it demands holism. Three-fold thought pushes toward transcendent awareness.

"I believe I need to eat, but I recognize that belief as part of the organism in which I exist. I do not obey or disobey hunger. I notice and accept it as part of me."

"They murder in service to an immortal law, that all creation exists to fall. I exist in each victim slain and each man who gave his life to kill them. They live because I live."

Four-Fold Thought and the Number Two

If you have four-fold thought, you deny the number two.

You do not quibble with "meaning" and "essence." You deny the number two.

Do not ask me to explain this. If you understand, great. If not, listen to this story.

Enlightening Zhaozhou

I walked to the temple of Lady Guan Yin. I sat at the feet of the great teacher Zhaozhou Congshen. I waited. I meditated. I listened. I ate, slept, excreted, cleaned myself. I lived in a room with forty men who never spoke to each other. I followed their example. I prayed beside them. I watched Zhaozhou. When would he speak?

I had enough. One morning I rose. I ate my porridge as fast as I could. Then I approached the great teacher. I sat at his feet. Thus I showed him proper respect. When his eyes fell to me, I asked him, "Great teacher, months ago I came to this temple. I hoped you would teach me. So teach me."

"Have you had breakfast yet?"

"Yes."

"Then go wash your bowl."

I left the temple before the sun rose a finger's breadth.

Westerners

I tracked down this koan from the Gateless Gate on the Internet. I first heard it in high school. Many people try to interpret it. I think they have no clue. Interpretation defeats the koan.

A Riddle

When is a bowl not a bowl?

A Clue

Check out this blog.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell

I recently finished reading Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norell by Susanna Clarke. This book won the Hugo and World Fantasy Awards for best novel of 2005. It received rave reviews.

The Style
The book reads like a Jane Austen or Dickens novel. Since the action takes place in the early 19th-century, this works to a degree. The style seems more like Dickens, using caricatures and expounded passages. The content seems more like Austen, focusing on relationships and wittiness. Of course, Dickens came much later than Austen, and that fits: the writer pretends to be a late 19th-century British writer chronicling events that took place decades earlier.

Footnotes
Clarke's innovative, endearing use of footnotes everywhere gives the book a twist. Some of the footnotes make better stories than the main action. Others seem dashed-off to lend an air of historicity to this alternate history yarn. This gives Clarke a unique style others can't imitate without seeming preposterous. You have to admire how well it works.

The Story
I found the story interesting, but at some points only just bearable. The narrative doesn't weave every character and every action into a unified plot. Following the axiom of fantasy novels, the book instead elaborates the milieu. Making you believe in this alternate world makes the book work. In certain sections, the story limps along in service of this greater goal.

The Characters
I loved the characters. Clarke handles them magnificently. You know who you like, who you dislike, and how much to like or dislike them. Mr. Norell comes across as creepy but misunderstood (even by himself). Jonathon Strange feels heroic and admirable, but just too energetic for his own good. The other characters have their own feel as well. I make one complaint: I'd prefer all the characters had a more dramatic role in the conclusion.

The World
For all the artistic effort put into making the world feel real, I don't care for it much. The world doesn't challenge my sensibilities the way other fantasy novels do (think Harry Potter). As an alternate Earth, its history feels unnaturally equivalent with our own world. A few dramatic surprises would help. Also it would be nice to visit some of the details.

Religion
In this world of magic, clergy coexists with magicians. As any D&D player can tell you, clerics and mages overlap and rival each other. For some reason, Clarke glosses over this point. She has Christian clergy cooperating (mostly) with magicians. This reverses totally the real world view, in which Christians burned people for using magic, even if they didn't have magic. More explanation would help.

Compared to Lord of the Rings
Finally, the back of the book has a quote from Time magazine saying this book rivals Lord of the Rings. I refute that. Lord of the Rings, for all its problems, weaves a much tighter story. The characters come together better. Instead of an alternate Earth, LoTR gives you a fantastical Earth. You can't navigate Tolkien's Middle Earth without a special map. Hobbits, dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, ogres, trolls, balrogs, ringwraiths, dragons, and ghosts all appear. Most play integral roles in the story (or in the prelude, The Hobbit). Lord of the Rings gives us a much richer fantasy environment than Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norell.

Baseball

This evening I watched a baseball game. The Sacramento River Cats played the Portland Beavers. They played nine innings of triple-A ball at Raley Field in West Sac.

How Much Money Did I Spend?

Triple-A players make somewhere over $2500 a month according to this site. Someone sure made a lot of money tonight because they packed us in the stadium. We paid $30 a ticket. More than 15,000 people attended. Biggest crowd ever. Someone made bucks.

Vendors made bucks, for sure. We bought

• three tri-tip sandwiches
• two bags of kettle corn
• two River Cat foam paws
• a bottle of water
  
• a snow cone
  

My wife spent almost $60 on this stuff.

We got a few silly gimmes. The kids each got a whistle. I snatched Charlotte's and blew it for about four or five innings. At that point, it annoyed even me. We also one discount coupons for Hooters. Whoopee.

How Did the Game Go?

The River Cats catcher went out in the 1st with an eye injury. The Beavers scored like 3 runs right away. We looked sunk. Then we came back.

Both teams hit the ball plenty. Both had home runs. The lead went back and forth.

The pitching changes didn't make sense to me. Whenever a pitcher looked like he had found the right touch, they yanked him. And this is NL ball, where pitchers don't bat. I guess the coaches want lots of looks at their pen.

By the top of the 8th, the Beavers had a 9-8 lead which they carried to the end.

I swear. We go every July 4th (approximately). Every time the River Cats lose. Add the stress of screaming, whining kids and you have the picture. Pretty miserable, right?

Then Why Do You Go?

The kids settle down when they get tired. Since I don't care about the Pacific Coast League, the River Cats winning would feel like a luxury.

After the game, we stayed for the fireworks show. The fireworks looked OK, I guess. Not much to write about.

I like the spherical shapes they make in the air. I also like the lazy, twisting sparks of blue and red. They snake toward you out of the burst, then shy away at crazy angles all of a sudden. Never seen that before.

I wish they played better music. More rock. Less patriotic mumbo gumbo.

I like the patriotism. Particularly this year. July 4th, 2008 feels special. Like people sense something changing. Could be the Presidential election this fall.

What's the Deal with Baseball?

Baseball works like a watch. Around and around it goes, in a cycle like the seasons. At the same time, someone wins and someone loses. The winning and losing becomes the game's narrative. Because it includes both a cycle and a narrative, baseball can mean anything to anyone. You can make any metaphor you want using baseball.

Yogi Berra stands as the epitome of baseball. He gave us a mass of contradictions, simple wisdoms or wise-sounding simplicities. So American.

You'll find a great quote on the bathroom wall at Raley Field, worded like this: "Ninety percent of baseball is mental, and the other half is physical."

Spin Control

I finished Spin Control a week or so ago. On the Amazon site, I found J. Avellanet's description matches my own feelings.

Spin Control won the 2006 Philip K. Dick award.

The plot deals with two groups.

• Syndicates
• Earth humans

The Syndicates consist of clones. Clones operate under strict communal principles. They don't breed. They consider themselves far superior to humans. They call themselves post-humans. Clones fall in love and have sex - with clones of the same model. They espouse homosexuality.

Earth humans live among the sorry ruins of a post-apocalyptic world. They dwell in the shadow of the Ring, the series of orbiting vessels where many (most?) humans live. Humans still fight over control of the Holy Land (Outremer, the Middle East, Israel/Palestine).

Between the two groups, the clones command much more interest. We empathize most with Arkady, the main character, a clone. His stories of the expedition to Novalis, strung between interaction with earthers, keep us reading. His love for the near-deviant Arkasha (a clone of the same model) explains all his motives. We like this guy.

The earthers could vanish, and we'd lose nothing. Cohen, an artificial intelligence, is the main Earth character. Li, a clone from a wiped-out race of clones, settled on Earth and married Cohen. She's number two. Characters like Cohen and Li don't interest me. I've met them before, and they bore me.

Moriarty's greatest skill shines through in characterization. Osnat, an Israeli commando and assassin, come across as lifelike. The novelist clearly loves Arkady. Reading these characters give me much happiness.

The plot gets complicated and far-fetched. The narrative runs quickly, though, and carries you through to the end. The end promises more: an alien invasion, or at least a reaction to that possibility. Stay tuned for the next spin.

I wish Moriarty had tightened this novel. As she develops, she'll learn. She references great sci-fi novels like Ender's Game, Dune, and many others. I suspect Moriarty will eventually write a novel that stands in their ranks. Spin Control doesn't reach that level, but you can see the talent.

Team Communication

Project managers spend a lot of time walking around talking to people. They don't spend much time at their desk working. Probably these days the bigwigs use BlackBerries.

Me, I don't have a BlackBerry. I don't even have a budget. I spend almost all my time working. My project seems almost an afterthought. The team assigned to my project can't dedicate time to it.

All that, and I'm pretty typical. Except for the budget and the BlackBerry, my experience mirrors most others.

I found out recently how communicating with a team works, both the good and bad.

I try to treat my folks like adults. They can show up or not show up to meetings. If they don't show up, I chalk it up to workload.

Two people decided they didn't want to be on the team. Fine with me, we have enough bodies. But they didn't tell their sponsor.

(In my situation, the sponsor is a manager/supervisor.)

When the sponsor found out, she hit the roof. She read them the riot act. Then she came and found me.

Why hadn't I told her? she demanded. Why didn't I communicate my expectations? How was she supposed to know her role? Or the role of team members?

I pointed out that I treated people like adults. I blamed her staff members for not communicating.

Which is true, as far as it goes, but what about me? Don't I have an obligation to lead the team? As a leader, shouldn't I have done better?

I thought I was being transparent and open. But apparently there needs to be something more.

More walking around. Talking to people. Cluing them in on where we're at.

Management by walking around. That's like the key to your corvette if you're a project manager.