Sun Tzu: All warfare is based on deception.

[Charlie]

Well said, Arthur! I'm siding with the crowd here that thinks high level kendo is performed not so much through deception as what might be described as ambiguity or mystery. Certainly, deception is a tactic (feints, for example, go men but it becomes doh) and if what we're being told by Kanyil is true we might remove from our thinking: "warfare/kendo is based on deception" and replace it with "deception is an acceptable tactic in warfare/kendo."

Kanyil:

I'm a history geek, too! And I studied Asian history at school though not to the extent you have. So nice to have such good discussion.

Well, your comments are very helpful to me. I'll have to re-read what little I know of Taoism with this in mind. I think the hardest thing for me to understand in approaching this material is often the Chinese (or Asian) view of religion, which was, I think based on what you're saying and a little I know/assume, very different from the western European experience (Greece with is pantheon, Rome, Christianity for England and the Continent). It seems to me that modern Asian countries where Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism flourished have a less dogmatic view of religion than the west but I could be mistaken. By that I mean the trend in the west has been to always try to lock down truth (see, for example, the dogmatic struggles of Christianity in its early stages and during the Protestant revolution) whereas the eastern leaves room for nuance (Taoism is philosophy, not as a kind of Bible cataloguing all truth).

In terms of leadership, I think Sun Tzu focuses more on strategy than character (although it does touch on it and the commenters expand on it) and assumes leaders are competent in levying "rewards and punishments" to other generals, officers and the rank and file. Leadership is usually the easiest thing for me to grasp though, on this topic, which is perhaps why I am drawn to it. Hey, question for you - do you think Sun Tzu has a political voice, at all? Seems to me it's easily adapted by anyone on the spectrum or any kind of state, though in Sun Tzu's time he would have assumed kingship and court life.

The other body of literature that has turned me on regarding the martial arts is, naturally, the "samurai literature" of Zen and related work not specifically Zen, which is much more individualistic and speaks directly to the mind, to character, etc. I very easily dig Hagakure which focuses so much on behavior and attitude.

One thing for sure is I tend to reach Sun Tzu in a very "scheming" voice and I think I am projecting my own personality onto the text. It's like it's not saying, "always lie, always concentrate on the opponent's weak spots, have a hive of treacherous spies" but, rather, "this is war, calculate, use these tactics because that's how it's done."

Another thing I have taken from this for kendo: don't attack where is is prepared, attack where he is less prepared or not prepared.

[Charlie]

Addendum: maybe it's not even "ambiguity or mystery" although there is that. High level kendo can just be a matter of them simply beating you with timing and skill. Like with Arthur's example; he leaves only men open but you cannot get the men because you cannot defeat his oji waza, or what have you.

[kanyil]

Very nice discussion!

Let me ask this in response - what's the difference between simply doing the wrong thing and being "deceived" by the otherside and end up being wrong? In kendo (as it is in warfare), is there a difference between losing an ippon (or dead) due to being wrong and due to being deceived? Many may say there is a difference in being honourable, but how much of that came from us who do not have our lives on the line romanticising warfare and the idea of bushu? Isn't there also the saying that "all is fair in love and war"?

As I mentioned before the term "deception" is only 1 of the many possible meanings of the term "詭" used in Sun Tzu's Art of War. Don't be tied down with the translated meaning as stuff gets lost in translation. It makes for a pithy and beautiful translation, but IMO the main point is more about doing the unexpected, which is strategy.

I do not agree that strategy does not figure into high-level kendo. IMO, if anything, that's where we tend to see it the most. Very little strategy is needed when you are up against someone who is not "at your level" (e.g. a beginner), because if you out-skill them enough, they basically do what you want them to do. When I keiko mudanshas in jigeiko, I might be able to shut down everything but men so they have no choice but to go to men so I can practice oji waza. But will I still be able to do the same when I meet someone who is evenly matched (or better) in shiai? Strategy can make a difference when things are evenly matched or when one is outclassed. When my army outnumbers the opponent 100,000 to 1 on an open field, strategy is probably a bit less important.

IMO, we the Chinese in general have a very open attitude towards any and all religion. It's kind of like hedging your bets. The Chinese has a long history of taking things from elsewhere and make it its own, including religions. Various emperors have adopted religions for themselves (thus making the religion in question into quasi-national religions), but the populace is generally free to believe in what they want.

The thing with Taoism is a bit difficult. There is Taoism the philosophy (from the writings of Chuang-Tzu and Lao-Tzu), and then there is Taoism the religion (which, as I understand it, is a mix of Taoism the philosophy, ancestor worshipping, shamanism, alchemy and Chinese folklore). Things got a bit confusing when the Taoism religion deified the Taoist philosphers and Confucius (as well as many other well known historical figures, such as Zhuge Liang, Guan Yu, etc). Chinese Buddhism is also quite different to what you'll find elsewhere, with Taoism elements mixed in. Anyways, this can be a touchy subject for some so let's leave it at that.

About Sun Tzu the person, due to the mist of time, not much is known about him. But from what was recorded, yes, he did hold a position of leadership in the Kingdom of Wu. Sun Tzu and Wu Zi Xu were the two generals responsible for annihilating the Kingdom of Chu.

I try to read Sun Tzu (and other historical text) in a matter of fact voice and with much suspicion. Don't take it as gospel if it doesn't make sense. I think I get the most out of it that way. For example, Sun Tzu's suggestion in "Waging War" to "Bring war material with you from home (*note this is a prettified translation - the original passage says, loosely, don't bring too much food when waging war), but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs." was applicable in the Spring and Autumn Period due to the number of minor kingdoms, so that there were many warehouses for rations near the site of battle to be raided. The actual meaning of this passage is believed to be no longer applicable as early as the Warring States Period a few generations later. One of the strongest criticisms came from his decendent, Sun Bin, who states that passage is outdated given that the minor kingdoms have all been consolidated and absorbed by the 7 Warring States, each with centralised, heavily defended warehouse for rations. If you take it as gospel, then how will you reconcile it with the need for a secure supply line?

In a hobby we have the luxury to worry about etiquette and reigi and whether our hakamas have been properly ironed. In war the goal is to grind the enemy into dust and destroy their economy through any means necessary, no? About Sun Tzu's (or any other warfare strategy manual) application to kendo, let's just remember that these guys are talking about life-or-death struggles and we get to go home to a cold beer. While some principles are equally applicable, not everything will fit (nor should it).

[G-CHAN]

Very nice discussion!

Let me ask this in response - what's the difference between simply doing the wrong thing and being "deceived" by the otherside and end up being wrong? In kendo (as it is in warfare), is there a difference between losing an ippon (or dead) due to being wrong and due to being deceived? Many may say there is a difference in being honourable, but how much of that came from us who do not have our lives on the line romanticising warfare and the idea of bushu? Isn't there also the saying that "all is fair in love and war"?

As I mentioned before the term "deception" is only 1 of the many possible meanings of the term "詭" used in Sun Tzu's Art of War. Don't be tied down with the translated meaning as stuff gets lost in translation. It makes for a pithy and beautiful translation, but IMO the main point is more about doing the unexpected, which is strategy.

I can only speak from my own experience in kendo, so feel free to throw bricks at it if you like. To me it's not about being wrong or deceived, it's more about being out wazaed. For instance, there was a time in jigeiko against a very strong kenshi(we grew up together practicing kendo) you had to manipulate his shinai a lot to strike because he maintains such a strong center. I was forced to use harai and osae waza to cut through his center. And he knew this. So I proceed with harai men, he responds by dropping his wrists and hits my kote.

What I did was not wrong nor I felt deceived, he just outsmarted me. Normally i use harai and osae waza in situations where I feel I'm being sucked into attack to avoid being countered. He taught me another level of kendo that day.

[Charlie]

Anyways, [Taoism] can be a touchy subject for some so let's leave it at that.

I didn't know that! I'll keep it in mind, but the thoughts expressed above are helpful and in line with what I have thought on the subject.

About Sun Tzu's (or any other warfare strategy manual) application to kendo, let's just remember that these guys are talking about life-or-death struggles and we get to go home to a cold beer. While some principles are equally applicable, not everything will fit (nor should it).

Agreed and well said. When I read Sun Tzu I try to understand first what he meant in his own time, grasp a principle, and then try to apply it to modern times and my own understanding of history and personal use (usually kendo). As I mentioned I, like so many, find this useful in thinking of business as well. I'd be interested to hear what you think of that, if at all. Personally, I find my industry (public relations/marketing) to be more about building than competing, so I find warfare or conflict literature has its limits in inspiring me.

[0746]

My angle: All warfare is a pointless waste of resources.

I agree with all of what is said that there is nothing wrong with deception. Do it to them enough times and they'll learn from it and wont fall for it again...just like anything else. If they don't see it, that would just be a testament of how good your kendo is compared to them.

I've read the book a few dozon times. With my limited experience of kendo, I'd say you could relate to it a lot. You could take a lot of those ideas and feel good about it.

If there was anything bad/counterproductive I personally found in that book, it would be the idea of perfectionism. I remember reading something like "simulating disorder means having perfect discipline...simulating weakness requires perfect strength..." or something like that. I guess those lines are straightforward and I understand them now and know how to take them. But back then when I started reading it, I didn't know how you are really supposed to look at perfectionism. I started feeling a sense of deficiency from not being perfect and whatnot and I guess weakning the mind is bad for kendo. Something to look out for if absolute beginners are thinking of reading the book I guess. Like its been said...take the parts that you like.

[turboyoshi]

Personally, I find my industry (public relations/marketing) to be more about building than competing, so I find warfare or conflict literature has its limits in inspiring me.

I think these interactions can still be viewed as a type of conflict though. It's still a matter of making your position seem valuable enough to the opposing force that you end up with more of the resources. If you're attempting to market a product/service, you need to convince the consumer that your product is worth $X. The consumer wants to convince you they're only willing to spend $Y which is less than $X. You need to overcome their objections/defenses. There is the conflict. Even internally, where marketing is working within the company to decide how to present their own product, you need a budget to work with, you need to convince your boss that your project is worth $X even though he's only willing to spend $Y (which is less than $X) developing the marketing plan, how do you convince him? You've got to find out what his defenses are and overcome them. I'm not sure I'm making my point clear but I think almost all interactions can be treated as a conflict and dealt with using the same strategies developed for combat.

[Hi There]

let me say again...if you dont want the other guy to be deceived as to what you are about to do....then you dont get it dont you....

[kanyil]

I meant religion in general can be a touchy subject. Even though Taoism is not really a major religion in this day and age anymore, I would hate to offend any Taoist monk who may be checking these boards while trying to make gold (or longevity medicine) from mercury…

My angle: All warfare is a pointless waste of resources.

From a macro-level, I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Unfortunately, from the level of us-against-them, history has showed that this is anything but the case and, in fact, all warfare is about resources. Both in the sense that "when there is a limited amount of something, more for me means less for you" and "wars are fought not only in the trenches but also in the factories back home".

If there was anything bad/counterproductive I personally found in that book, it would be the idea of perfectionism. I remember reading something like "simulating disorder means having perfect discipline...simulating weakness requires perfect strength..."

That would be due to the well-meaning (but IMO semi-dodgy) translation. The passage you referred to is " 亂生于治，怯生于勇，弱生于強。", which has been translated as " Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength."

Note the symmetry in the original Chinese passage and the lack thereof in the English translation due to the insertion of the word "perfect" before the word "discipline". IMO, while in the context of the passage the word "perfect" can be there, it shouldn't.

The insertion of the word "perfect" does not make the translation of the passage incorrect, but narrows the meaning of the original passage. It also has the added effect of confusing readers. The original passage, in my view and in plain English, says in relation to troops, roughly, "discipline is required to fake disorder; courage is required to fake fearfulness; strength is required to fake weakness".

[Charlie]

Man, Kanyil, this is enlightening.

Yoshi, I see what you're saying and I do like to explore that vein of inquiry. For me, our competition usually comes in the form of trying to win clients away from or in competition with other firms (I work at an agency). So that makes sense to me. But my own personal approach to marketing communications is really honest. I think brands make promises to their consumers and fulfill them. They retain them by producing the same desired outcome time after time. The role of marketing communications is to tell the honest story, as publicly as possible, of the brand's promise and fulfillment. What works best, I think, is for brands to sustain long term relationships with its consumers. I don't want you to buy my client's bread, aspirin, blue jeans once. I want you to think of yourself and your family as loyal to my client's brand and buy them again and again. "We always buy ____ bread because ____ (it's affordable, it's nutritious, it employs people in my region, it tastes good, for every dollar I spend so much goes to a cause I believe in, etc.)." My job is to tell that story and get new customers to consider us and prefer us.

Just doesn't smell like conflict to me. Smells like the opposite. I can't reconcile the two in my brain.

[Charlie]

Kanyil, wouldn't mind if you sounded off on how Sun Tzu is seen by the business community and the merits or detriments you feel are obtained by that.

[kanyil]

Kanyil, wouldn't mind if you sounded off on how Sun Tzu is seen by the business community and the merits or detriments you feel are obtained by that.

Charlie, I think this is a thesis worthy topic. I'm just a geek with a shinai and a few books so I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on that topic...

I think brands make promises to their consumers and fulfill them...What works best, I think, is for brands to sustain long term relationships with its consumers. My job is to tell that story and get new customers to consider us and prefer us.

In relation to the PR industry, I am not sure that the relationship between you, your client and the consumers smell like real conflict. In real warfare, armies compete with each other over land/resources. There is no real conflict between an army and the land/resources being fought over. Ask yourself, in relation to your industry, who are your competitors and what are you fighting over?

[turboyoshi]

Just doesn't smell like conflict to me. Smells like the opposite. I can't reconcile the two in my brain.

The relationship you establish with your customer isn't strictly adversarial but it's not altruistic either, unless you're working for a charity. You are in business to make a profit and that means giving your customer something that has more perceived value than actual value. However, I might have stated the case too strongly against the wrong opponent. I think there is still conflict here but maybe the consumer is just an indirect link to your actual adversary.

[Charlie]

You are in business to make a profit and that means giving your customer something that has more perceived value than actual value.

Really? I never went to business school and everything I've learned about the marketplace and economics I've learned while working but is that really how companies function?

I'm just a geek with a shinai and a few books...

Same here! I'll think about what you wrote. Be interested to hear from you if you've read any good business literature on the subject of Sun Tzu, or from you on who you like to read about Sun Tzu, if anyone, if in English.

[Charlie]

I actually really like this page:

http://www.strategies-tactics.com/su...ontents_Anchor