The Dao

When Elijah Siegler gets into arguments, he thinks about an ancient idea from the Dao: what's the point? 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

  When We Disagree is a show about arguments. How we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves.  Us versus them. In groups and out groups. When we become locked within groups, conflict can feel inevitable. If we're looking to lessen toxicity, to take the temperature down, so to speak, one place to start is to understand just how easy it is for people to fall into us versus them thinking.

Among the most influential scholars to study inter group conflict was Henry Tocqueville. Born to a Jewish family in Poland in 1919, he would later study chemistry in France. He joined the French army during World War II and was captured and imprisoned by the Nazis. He survived, but upon returning to his homeland in Poland, he discovered that most of his immediate family and many of his friends had been killed during the Holocaust.

He would dedicate his life to studying the psychology of prejudice.  And one of its core lessons was this.  Individuals can fall into us versus them thinking without even having much incentive to do so. For example, in one of its studies, participants were shown lots of dots on a screen and asked to estimate how many dots there were.

Some were told their estimates were too high. Some were told their estimates were too low. High estimators and low estimators were not, in other words. Super important group identities with rich histories involving religion, language, and a sense of place. These were identities that researchers just completely made up.

And even within these very basic groups, and this was replicated in many other studies, in group bias and the desire to promote group solidarity was rampant. People preferred group members over their own group, over outgroups, and in some versions of the experiment, They would work against their own self interest to promote their group of high or low estimators. 

As the scholar Lilliana Mason has written in a great book on political conflict called Uncivil Agreement, quote, These natural, even primal human tendencies towards group isolation and group comparison open the door to group conflict. The human inclination is to prefer and privilege members of the in group.

The result of group membership is simply to hold positive feelings for the in group and no positive feelings toward outsiders.  I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. Our guest today on When We Disagree is Elijah Siegler, professor of religious studies.

He is also the author of Dream Trippers, Global Taoism and the Predicament of Modern Spirituality. Elijah, tell us an argument story.  

Thanks, Mike. It's great to be here. So, about maybe four years ago, I got into kind of a series of discussions with my daughter Lucy, who was about to go to college or university.

And, um, I was really encouraging her to go to a kind of liberal arts school where there'd be gen ed requirements, so she'd have to take some history and some science and some English. She wanted to go to a kind of a pre professional school. Um, so I thought it was funny cause it's kind of a twist on the old, you know, whereas the, the kid wants to study art history or gender studies or Italian literature.

And then the parent was like, you better study something practical so you can get a job. So, um, It's a little twist on that. Uh, she won out and she is about to graduate from an art and design college where all of her classes were sort of geared towards art and design. And she didn't take any gen ed. Um,  so that was the arguments. 

What do you think was at stake for her? In other words, was she pursuing a very specific passion? Was she being rebellious? A bit of both? 

Sure, I mean, I think at 17 when she was about to go, you know, she wanted to establish her own independence. She and I both knew that she loved art and that she wanted a career in art.

So that wasn't the argument. It was just more about I wanted to have a more well rounded education. Uh, but she was, you know, she was thinking very practically, but this argument, I think I'm, I'm presenting it now just as like a pivot to talk about what I really want to talk about, um, which is ancient Chinese philosophy and what that had to do, what, what did that have to do with the argument?

Because I think both, both her and I. Were kind of invested in who we thought we were as people, you know, who she thought herself as a practical artist who wanted to, um, make a living as an artist, which she wound up doing. I mean, I guess you could say she won the argument, which is great. And I was sort of invested in being the liberal arts professor who wanted to make sure my own kids had a well rounded education and took the type of classes that I teach classes in religious studies, classes  in culture and anthropology and stuff like that.

So. But really, you know, if I could have stepped away from this argument, and let me make it clear, this was a very friendly argument and everything was fine, but if I could have stepped away from the argument, um,  I could have kind of from a, looked at it from a kind of, not my own perspective, but a kind of more of a cosmic or mystical perspective, like what's really at stake, you realize the argument is not really about anything at all, and that led me to think to what I consider the most influential book that I have ever heard.

Uh, read in my whole life and which I wanted to share with your audience today. 

Please do. 

So the book is called, um, Zhuangzi, which is the name of the book and the name of the author. And this is an ancient Chinese philosopher who lived around the fourth century BCE. So about 2, 400 years ago or so.  And, um, he's considered kind of the second great Taoist philosopher.

The first one is maybe more, uh, familiar to some of your listeners is Lao Tzu, um, who wrote the book called the Tao Te Ching, which is, which is, um, you know, fairly well known. And there's multiple English translations and Zhuangzi, You can still buy in any bookstore and I would encourage you to do so. But I'm, uh, and, and I thought I'd maybe spell out the name, um, just so people who are interested after this podcast can, uh, can check on Amazon or whatever or, or find it free online.

So Zhuangzi can be spelled in one of two ways, depending on the Chinese, uh, translation that you use. Um, the older version is. C H U A N G space T Z U. So it almost sounds phonetically like Chuang Tzu. Um, but you also might see it translated as Z  H U A N G Z I. Same name, same, in Chinese characters, same thing.

It's pronounced Zhuangzi, and it means Master Zhuang or Sir Zhuang. Zhuang is his family name. And this book of philosophy is so full of jokes,  arguments, riddles, stories.  The first time I read it as a  Sophomore in college for a class. It just made me laugh out loud and it also changed my life. And there's a lot of it that's directly about argument.

So that's why I wanted to bring it to you today, Mike. 

Go ahead. So connect it, connect the content of this ancient text back to the argument you were having with your daughter. 

Well, as I was saying early, I mean, it's not specifically connected to this argument over what college to go to, but it's connected to the idea of what our arguments for anyway.

And. And 

what are we doing? 

What are we doing when we argue? And as it possible to  resolve arguments, not through, um, kind of logic or through rhetoric, but actually through what a later philosopher might call perspectivism, simply kind of like, Rising above the argument itself and if I could I think I mean drawings explains this better than I can.

Yeah 

Give 

us a listen here. 

Okay, so I'm gonna read directly from the book of Zhuangzi right here. And this is from chapter 2 Discussion on making all things equal that's the name of the chapter and this is this is a short excerpt 

quote Suppose you and I have had an argument  If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right, and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right, and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right, or are both of us wrong?

If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right?  Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide?

Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us How can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide?  Obviously then neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we wait for still another person? 

Harmonize all the arguments with the heavenly equality. Leave them to their endless changes, and so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the heavenly equality?  Right is not right. So is not so. If white right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument.

If so, or really so, it would differ so clearly from not so, that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years, forget distinctions, leap into the boundless and make it your home.  

It's beautiful and it's lyrical. I'm wondering if you could give us kind of a bumper sticker, a rendition of what that means to you.

Sure, um, I guess it just simply means that, um, there's no logical end, you know, and any argument can be a, maybe a reductio ad absurdum, because,  you know, I think I'm right, but you think you're right, and then who knows who's really right. You bring in someone else, and they simply just add to the confusion, because they already have their own biases.

You know, whoever this third arbiter, you know, so then Zhuangzi kind of takes, takes a final, you know, kind of encourages almost a kind of mystical leap, you know, what he calls the, the, the boundless, you know, just like leap into something that's so transcended that these arguments just seem petty or ridiculous.

That's how I interpret it.  

Okay. Um, I'm struck with a few different things. One is that we could have multiple different types of arguments. And so on the show and in my life, I've heard and have had arguments that feel deeply pointless and feel like we are caught as Robert McNamara talked about the fog of war and the famous documentary, kind of the fog of argument where I am dug in and trying to persuade you, maybe for egotistical reasons, that I am right about something that's probably a matter of taste. 

Are onions good on a pizza? That sort of a thing. 

Yes, they are, by the way. 

Right. Of course, that's objectively true. But some people disagree with you and I, and those people are obviously wrong. And here I am, dug in, trying to persuade them that their taste buds are wrong. But then there are others which are  quite frankly, matters of fact, many of which are deeply important to our day to day lives.

Existence of gravity, for instance, the warming of the earth, how many people are at a particular inauguration. These are the kinds of facts that are deeply important  and need to be the province of persuasion. And then the third  argument is the way in which we contest out what is true. And so it's not as if two fully formed minds show up and say, okay, well, I have  dedicated my entire life to studying this subject and I have arrived at an opinion.

You have done the same in turn and you haven't arrived at an opinion and let's then figure out who's finally right or wrong. Instead, It is the actual process of building knowledge by exchanging claims. And so when I hear this, and I hear about stepping outside of argument or thinking of all arguments as pointless, part of me is thinking, Yeah, sure.

Some are, but then there are others which are really important. And also how do we build knowledge without having arguments? 

I agree. And I'm, you know, and I've, I've, as when I was preparing to come on your podcast, I was thinking about these passages and, and, you know, to put it in the context, Zhuangzi wrote this, you know, in the fourth century BCE.

So he was not writing this in any sense in a liberal democracy where argument is so important.  And, uh, you know, so when I hear somebody saying, Hey, let's not argue, let's just like leap into the boundless, you know, and there's this kind of mystical, I'm, I'm kind of very suspicious as you are of kind of bypassing rationality, bypassing rhetoric, you know, um, but to get back to your first point.

So many arguments are built in, are either built up on our own egos, our own perspective of who we think we are, or in the words themselves. You know, these words, this word means something, or this word means something else, and Zhuangzi is trying to get us to show us the limitation of language. Right? I think that's one of his big, uh, throughout this whole philosophical work, you know, which is several hundred pages long and all worth reading.

One of his major themes is that, you know, um, languages have limits and to maybe just quote quickly from the more famous great Taoist, uh, book, the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. One of the most famous, uh, lines from that is one who speaks does not know one who knows does not speak. Okay.  So again, from, from the perspective of, of, you know, someone who studies argument, that's problematic because of course you have to speak, but it also shows that there is something, um, something  to be said for residing in, um, the Chinese word is the Tao in English that's translates as the way, which is that kind of cosmic way beyond distinctions, beyond opposites, beyond, uh, trying to make your point. 

Tell me a little bit more about what the limitation of language means there because Some might say, well, our language is limited because we are limited, but the problems with the limitations of language are solved by more language, not less language. 

Right. And Zhuangzi would say that just gets us further and deeper.

Um, there's another passage from earlier in the chapter, very short, that maybe I could read that would explain this because I think Zhuangzi, you know, says this better than I could. So let me quote briefly from Zhuangzi once more, if I may, quote, Words are not just wind. Words have something to say.  But, if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something?

Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds. But is there any difference or isn't there? What does the way, the Tao, rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words rely upon that we have right and wrong? How can the way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? 

When the way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain shows, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Moists. So let me stop there. Okay.  So he's talking about Confucius and Moes, which are two of the big philosophical schools at the time that he's writing. And they got into arguments over the nature of virtue and the nature of good government, and should you love your family more than humanity at large, or vice versa.

Uh 

huh. And what Zhuangzi's saying here is that You know, these are, these are real legitimate arguments, but they're just a part of this whole cosmic way, right? Um, so the way transcends any language and, and from the kind of cosmic perspective, are words really any different from the, the, the peeps of baby birds?

They're just the noises and marks that human animals make, just like other animals. 

That's what Johnso would say, yeah. So then 

how then, minus these kinds of symbols, which we all use to get around, how do we, how does one access? the way. In other words, what, what beyond the meanings and symbols and noises and marks that we all make, do we have through which we can access some greater form of knowledge?

That is a great question. And that's the, you know, that's, I think the question that Daoists have been, um, puzzling over for thousands of years, even though, of course, they also get into philosophical and religious debates. But I mean, I think one answer is, would say to go within through meditation. Um, to still the mind.

And again, that's not just a Taoist concept. Many religious traditions have the idea of stilling your mind as a way to stop thinking argumentatively, stop thinking linguistically, and to find that kind of like stillness within you.  Um, so the way, so don't argue with your friend or your neighbor or your daughter, but don't argue with yourself.

I mean, you were constantly having a little, according to this viewpoint, this religious or mystical viewpoint, we're constantly having a little argument in our own mind, you know, and we need to, we need to stop that 

completely. There's, it seems to me just, and I'm coming to this, I mean, I just could not be more ignorant about these authors, these concepts.

I'm familiar with some religious traditions, and some of it strikes me as trans religious in the sense that, We're trying to access a way beyond what seemed like superficial meanings of words and into something like  transcendent knowledge. And so that is the framework from which I'm coming from when I say what I'm about to say, which is how do I know that I have stopped thinking symbolically? 

if I have, quote, stilled my mind and stopped arguing with myself.  

How do you know? Yeah, well, I mean, some of these books, some of these ancient Daoist books are kind of like, almost like guideposts.  They're both instruction manuals to sort of get to that, uh, sort of post language mind, that still mind, but they're also descriptions of what that post mind looks like.

And ironically, of course, these books are written in words, right? Of course. So there's that. Of course. There's, there is that paradox. But, 

um Well, in that first passage you read, the author was criticizing or  acting somewhat speculatively about the point of argument, saying, well, if I win, does that mean that I'm right?

Or if we find a judge who says that I'm arguing better. Does that mean I'm right? But we could have the same set of arguments over this kind of mindfulness practice, which is how do I know that I've achieved anything that looks like mindfulness? Well, we could have an argument about it and maybe you'd persuade me.

Or we could have a third party who's somewhat of an expert come and say, well, you look pretty mindful today. We're kind of back into the same. And 

that's one of the things that I still How, how are these religious states authorized or how are they considered authentic or not? I mean, that's something that I'm interested in, in my own academic work, but I think, I mean, just on a very basic level, if you are engaged in an argument as, you know, so many people are, and then you stop to read this Zhuangzi, it may, I think, just help you,  not achieve transcendence or mysticism, but, but simply maybe become a little bit more aware of the limitations of your own position, which I think has to be a good thing.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess that's kind of where I'm stuck and where I want to kind of close is to get you to think through and tell us what that means to you. Because It's the, the meaning of the limitations of language, the limits of our own perspective to me is not altogether obvious. In other words, hopefully in a healthy sense, one of the things that I would say is perhaps,  okay, words are limited.

Meaning is limited. My perspective is limited. I have biases baked into how I see the world, all these sorts of things. And so therefore maybe I shouldn't approach the world with this kind of a hundred percent certainty. Like I've got everything figured out. Let's check my ego a little bit, but what beyond that kind of a self check.

is this, um, is the argument for limitation useful for?  

Sure. Yeah. I mean, that's, uh, that's, uh, that's a great question. And I guess that's one I'm wrestling with myself in my own academic life and my own and my own personal life. Uh, I guess it depends how you define, you know, in the first passage that I read, Uh, Zhuangzi talks about something called, uh, heavenly equality, uh, and then later he talks about something called the boundless, which can mean, you know, can be translated as no end or no finish.

So these are kind of seem like woo woo, you know, mystical Taoist terms, but I mean, I think that they, it's, it's simply, I think, means to internalize exactly what you just said earlier. The fact that we are all limited, our languages are limited, our, we, we all have inherent bias and simply realize, you know, with humility that there's something bigger, something more out, out there, which in Daoism, they would call the way or the Dao.

Yeah. Yeah. It also seems like that position could also lead to a kind of Um, defeatism where I'm subject to my own infinite kinds of doubts. And so even if somebody is standing in front of me, gaslighting me, telling me something that I know is for a fact true, that it is not true, that they could prey upon this kind of debt, this kind of doubt.

And from this point of view, promote a kind of defeatism where I don't even stand up and say, I just think you're wrong about this. 

Well, Dranzo would probably say you could promote a kind of happiness. It would give you the ability to just walk away from that gaslighter or that, you know, like, uh, tendentious argumentative person and just, just, you know, take joy in the, in the, in the, uh, In the everyday, right?

I mean part of one of the things that I loved about Zhuangzi I still do is not just his references to mysticism and transcendence but also to to kind of the to kind of the everyday there's a there's a famous passage where Zhuangzi wants to some some some of the king's advisors come to Zhuangzi and say I want you to come and become an advisor for the king I want you to you know become his kind of house philosopher and he says the king has a uh Uh, a tortoise, right?

Uh, who's very old and who's died and he lives in a box. Do you think that tortoise would rather be in the king's possession in a box or would he rather be on the riverbed wagging his tail in the mud? And the councillors say, uh, well, I'm sure he'd rather be, you know, alive and in the mud than, you know, dead and in a box. 

In the king's palace and Zhuangzi says, I'm the same way. I want to drag my tail in the mud. So get away. So he refuses to serve the government. He refuses to be a kind of philosopher for hire, to be a professional 

argumenter 

because he wants to be in the mud. He wants to be, you know, splashing around on the river bank, like a happy tortoise.

And that's a, that's a, you know, another very powerful image. So I think that's, you know, that's the positive message. 

That is the message. And it is striking to me. And what's interesting about that metaphor too, is that he's alone. Yes. He's alone in the mud. Yes. But what we're talking about is so deeply social and we can't escape sociality unless we find our own mountain.

But even then, you know, we're going to have to figure out easements and roads and maybe pay property taxes and we're back up into the same argumentative social loop. And so we can have fantasies of escaping these kinds of contests over meaning or being dead turtles in a king's box. Um, yeah. But in the end, we're back here dealing with the gas lighter in front of us, confronted with the question of, should I argue or should I not?

Is this whole thing pointless? 

Yeah. I mean, and in fact, Zhuangzi is the first of, you know, thousands of years of Taoist people who are advising, yeah, go to the mountains, be a hermit. I mean, there's a long tradition. Taoism to literally and even today you can go to mountains in China and find hermits who are living alone  And as you're right, they probably have arguments with their neighbors about you know, yeah land use or whatever, but  For the most part they they can live happily in a in a hermetic life And certainly they've got visitors like all my time in China.

I might have come across them  And they're they're happy to see you, but I think you are right. It is a fundamentally  existence, which again, doesn't really jive with our, you know, kind of our Western culture today.  

Right. And in the end for you, then there is a kind of cash use everyday value for this, which is even if you're not, obviously you're here on a podcast with me in a studio and so your commitment to a hermetic life seems limited at the, at the moment, at least you can adopt a kind of devil may care attitude about the process of argument or whether you and I get into an exchange and how you feel about it doesn't particularly matter because in the grand scheme of things, This exchange probably doesn't matter.

That's exactly right. And, and, you know, I, there's the, you know, I have, uh, maybe a literal out with someday I may well retire and move to the mountains and try to live John's his existence,  

Elijah. Thank you so much for coming on When We Disagree. Thank you, Mike.  When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee.

Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com.