Archives
Martial Arts Related Articles
The Philosophy of Bruce Lee - Part 2: Axiomatic Principals - The Starting Point, By John Little
"Philosophy will tell you what man lives for."
-Bruce Lee 1
Any attempt to present the philosophy of Bruce Lee must, obviously, begin at the beginning. That is to say, with Bruce Lee himself. The reason for this is obvious: anything other than Lee's own thoughts on the matter is second-hand, and therefore suspect.
Whenever possible, we will appeal to Lees' own words on the matter and these words will be indicated inby red. In the event where I have attempted to elaborate on a point (which I will keep to a minimum), my own extrapolations and explanations will be in regular type, thereby offsetting them from Lee's own comments in this regard. And please do not look to my words and explanations as being in any way definitive. They are merely an attempt to illuminate an area, thought or facet of Lee's philosophical belief that he may not have taken the time to do himself. Wherever possible, please read (and re-read) Lee's words. I will serve the purpose throughout this series of, to borrow on of Lee's more popular maxims, being "the finger pointing a way to the moon," the moon in this case being Lee's teachings on the subject of truth and life (i.e., his philosophy).
By the same token, do not make the mistake of taking Lee's words to be the gospel either, because then you will have made another "finger"-or dogma-of his teachings. Besides, words can express no more than a tiny fragment of human knowledge, for what we can say and think is always immeasurably less than what we experience. The word " table," for example, refers to a general class of objects upon which we place things, but there exists a multitude of different tables; some slim, some made of pines, other of teak, some with ornately carved legs, other with collapsible legs, etc., that on word fails to adequately describe. Similarly there exits a danger, particularly for intellectuals, or those who possess great skill with words, of restricting what can be known to what can be described, and such people are therefore apt to be perplexed and suspicious when anyone tries to use ordinary language to convey an experience which shatters its logic, an experience which words can express only at the cost of losing their meaning, such as Lao-tzu's dictum "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." 2
The words, then, like the man who spoke them are also "fingers" pointing toward something, or, more accurately, inherently imperfect symbols that attempt to represent a reality that has been experienced by the speaker-in this case Bruce Lee. What is important is that you see for yourself the truth that lies behind the word and not take the word to be anything other than a call to attention in a specific area of human experience. As Lee himself said:
It is not difficult to learn and speak the words The hard thing, the difficult thing is behind what is their meaning, what brought on the expression and feelings behind those words. 3
In other words, it is imperative for full comprehension of Lee's philosophy to see the validity and truth of it for yourself and accept it on your own terms, and not take it on blind faith simply because "Bruce Lee believed it." Such a perspective will avail you no benefit from his teachings whatsoever. After all, one can have a dull mind, then learn to recite someone else's words and opinions like an actor memorizing dialogue -and yet still have a dull mind. Conversely, you can reject the teachings for the same reason, i.e., perhaps you have a prejudice that prevents you from liking Bruce Lee, martial artists or anything to do with Asian culture and so you reject his philosophy out of school, without ever taking the time to examine it -but then you would simply be reactionary, who distrusts, dislikes, or refutes a viewpoint without ever investigating to see if the viewpoint is true.
Again, if you do not see the truth that Lee's finger (his words, teachings) is pointing at, then there is nothing of benefit that his philosophy can offer you: finger itself is not the issue of importance, but rather what it is pointing at. But to doubt, to ask questions -and to see and understand the reasons underlying his answers, is to get the message that the philosopher (in this case Bruce Lee) is attempting to communicate. As Lee himself once said:
I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. 4
However, before we can take a look at "the heavenly glory" that Lee found significant enough to "point at" through his teachings, we first need to know what it was that first inspired him to raise his gaze up towards the heavens. Why did Lee come to embrace philosophy? What were the reasons that led him to study this subject both formally(at the University of Washington) and informally (literally spending thousands of hours over a period extending some 14 years immersing himself in the teachings and belief systems of mankind)?
Fortunately, in 1972 Bruce Lee wrote an essay dealing with this issue specifically, a portion of which was entitled -appropriately enough -Why I Took To Philosophy. It would behoove us then, at the beginning of our journey into the mind of Bruce Lee, to have before us his own thoughts on the subject. After reading his words, we can then proceed to travel with him through the development of his personal philosophy and to explore the reasons or validations that underlay his viewpoints.
Why I Took To Philosophy
When I returned from Thailand with the work crew of Golden Harvest Ltd . after the completion of The Big Boss, many people started asking me this: What was it that made me give up my career in the States and return to Hong Kong to shoot Chinese films? Perhaps the general feeling was that it was all hell to have to work on Chinese films since the Chinese film industry was still so underdeveloped. To the above question, I find no easy explanation except that I am Chinese and I have to fulfill my duty as a Chinese. The truth is, I am an American-born Chinese….that I should become an American-born Chinese was accidental, or it might have been my father's arrangement. At the time, the Chinese inhabitants in the States, mostly migrated from the province of Kwangtung, were very much homesick. Nostalgia was held towards everything that was associated with their homeland.
In this context, Chinese opera, with its unmistakably unique Chinese characteristics, won the day. My old man was a famous artist of the Chinese opera and was popularly accepted by the people. Hence he spent a lot of time performing in the States. I was born when he was brought along my mother during one of his performance trips.
Yet, my father did not want me to receive an American education. When I reached my school age, he sent me back to Hong Kong - his second homeland-to live with his kinsmen. It could have been a matter of heredity of environment; I came to be greatly interested in the making of films when I was studying in Hong Kong. My father was then well acquainted with lots of movie stars and directors, among whom there was the late Mr. Chin Kam. They brought me into the studio and gave me some roles to play. I started off as a bit player and gradually became the star of the show.
That was a very crucial experience in my life. For the first time I was confronted with genuine Chinese culture. The sense of being part of it was so strongly felt that I was enchanted. I didn't realize it then, nor did I see how great an influence environment had on the molding of one's character and personality. Nevertheless, the notion of "being Chinese" was then duly conceived.
From boyhood to adolescence, I presented myself as a troublemaker and was greatly disapproved of by my elders. I was extremely mischievous, aggressive, hot-tempered and fierce. Not only my "opponents" of more or less my age stayed out of my way, but even the adults sometimes gave in to my temper. I never knew what it was that made me so pugnacious. The first thought that came into my mind whenever I met somebody I disliked was: "Challenge hi!" Challenge him with what? The only concrete thing that I could think of we my fists. I thought that victory meant beating down others, but I failed to realize force was not real victory. When I enrolled in the University of Washington and was enlightened by philosophy, I regretted all my previous immature assumptions.
My majoring in philosophy was closely related to the pugnacity of my childhood. I often ask myself these questions: What comes after victory? Why do people value victory so much? What is glory? What kind of "victory" is "glorious?" When my tutor assisted me in choosing my coursed, he advised me to take up Philosophy because of my inquisitiveness. He said, "philosophy will tell you what man lives for."
When I told my friends and relatives that I had picked up philosophy, they we all amazed. Everybody though I had better go into physical education since the only extracurricular activity I was interested in, from my childhood until I graduated from my secondary school, was Chinese Martial Arts. As a matter of fact, martial art and philosophy seem to be antithetical to each other, but I think that the theoretical part of Chinese Martial Art seems to be getting indistinct. Every action should have its why and wherefore; and there ought to be a complete and proficient theory to back up the whole concept of Chinese Martial Arts. I wish to infuse the spirit of philosophy into martial art, therefore I insist on studying philosophy.
I have never discontinued studying and practicing marital arts. While I am tracing the source and history of Chinese marital arts, this doubt always comes up: No that every branch of Chinese Gung Fu has its own form, its own established style, are these the original intentions of their founders? I don't think so. Formality could be a hindrance to progress; this is applicable to everything, including philosophy. Philosophy brings my Jeet Kune Do into a new realm in the sphere of martial arts, and Jeet Kune Do brings my acting career to a new horizon. 5
There are many statements contained within this essay that are very revealing about Lee's philosophical development, however, there are three in particular that bear particular significance to the first several lessons of this course. The first of these reveals Lee's first conscious awareness of Chinese culture:
For the first time I was confronted with genuine Chinese culture. The sense of being part of it was so strongly felt that I was enchanted. I didn't realize it then, nor did I see how great an influence environment had on the molding of one's character and personality. Nevertheless, the notion of "being Chinese" was then duly conceived
Culture, as defined by Websters Dictionary, concerns itself with "the training and development of the mind." As such, culture is what defines and /or distinguishes a race of people, such as their arts, mores, industry and philosophy. In this last category, there exist two main schools of Chinese thought that have endured throughout millenniums and which held profound impact on Bruce Lee: the Taoist and the Confucianist; the former being concerned with the essential unity of the universe and in abiding in the way of "Tao" or nature, and the latter being predicated on societal and familial duties and responsibilities.
As we will be going into Lee's definition and thoughts on the Tao later in this course ( as well as touching on the Confucian principles that he felt important), I shall leave this statement aside for the time being. The important thing to take away from the sentence is the admission on Lee's part of how "enchanted" he was with Chinese culture and, moreover, "how great an influence" this "environment" had on the development or "molding" of his "character and personality." Indeed, the influence of Taoist thought in particular would prove to run very deep throughout Lee's life.
In the second telling quote, we learn the reason why Lee decided to proceed with his formal study of philosophy:
My majoring in philosophy was closely related to the pugnacity of my childhood. I often ask myself these questions: What comes after victory? Why do people value victory so much? What is "glory?" What kind of "victory" is "glorious?" When my tutor assisted me in choosing my courses, he advised me to take up Philosophy because of my inquisitiveness. He said, "philosophy will tell you what man lives for."
This really is the axis mundi or central axis of philosophy: to question. The nature of the questions Lee poses to himself in this example are, perhaps, more telling than the questions themselves. To ask questions such as "Why" and "What" (as in "what man lives for") are very revealing as they are the foundational questions of philosophy.
The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, once said: "Wonder is the beginning of philosophy." To the philosopher, existence seems fascinating and the more we look at it, the more questions seem to come to mind. Particularly when the philosopher realizes that we are all embraced within a neurological contraption that is able to center itself in the midst of and incredible expanse of galaxies and then start measuring the whole thing. "Existence is relationship," said Alan Watts, "and we are smack in the middle of it." 6 And it is this state of wonder, that gives rise to our questions of what, why and how.
Or, as Lee indicates in a later sentence in his essay:
Every action should have its why and wherefore.
Axiomatic Principle #1: Existence
"There is no such thing as an effective segment of totality," so said Bruce Lee in 1971. 7 In other words, one must look at any subject -from martial arts to life itself -in the big picture. The high vantage point, rather than at its many interrelated facets. Hegel said "The true is the Whole," 8 and at the end of this presentation, you should be able to see a unique Whole, the whole which is Bruce Lee's philosophic achievement. You may then judge for yourself whether it is an important achievement -and whether or not it is true.
By the time most individuals come to philosophy they are adults; that is, at a stage of mental development whereby they are able to look at the world and make certain cognitive formations that are on a higher order than when they were merely children operating on a purely perceptual level. And that first task of the philosopher to separate the fundamental principals from the rest. He must determine which observations and perceptions lie at the base of human knowledge and which ones come into play further up the structure (remember my pagoda analogy from Part One of this course). In other words, which observations are their reducible principles of cognition and which are derivatives.
Some philosophers such as the Greek thinker, Parmenides speaking in approximately 510 B.C., described this phenomenon thusly: "what is is." Bruce Lee, speaking some 2,482 years later described it as, "Reality in itsisness, the "isness" of a thing. 9
Admittedly, our perceptions -much like our words -often provide us with imperfect representations, for example, we perceive that an apple hits the floor when we release it from our hand -but we do not perceive the "existent" of an entity called "gravity," per se. Although we may be getting ahead of ourselves, it might behoove us at this juncture to see how Lee addressed this issue. Lee wrote that:
Sense data is caused by [a] physical object [and] in order to find out [about] that actual objects in front of us, reason and rational thinking is necessary [while bearing in mind that] what we experience are the effect of physical objects. 10
Regarding Human Understanding
According to Bruce Lee, human beings learn to understand that world initially by means of perceptions (simple impressions), which go on to form simple ideas (concepts). From there our understanding moves on to complex ideas and complex impressions. As Lee puts it:
In regarding human understanding there are simple impressions and simple ideas. A simple impression has a stronger and more vivid picture than a simple idea and is also the cause of simple idea. 11
In other words, precepts are the cause of concepts. Lee then goes on to explain concepts (simple ideas):
In other words, simple ideas are copies of the simple impressions. For example, I see something exciting and that certain something moves me and because of this impression I can later on have an idea of it. Therefore simple ideas are direct copies of simple impressions and cannot be broken into parts but are a unifying whole. 12
From this point, Lee goes on to explain that complex ideas (concepts) are simply a group (two or more) of simple ideas (perceptual data), which are, by extension, also copies of groups of simple impressions. However, as Lee indicates, there is an exception to the "complex ideas" (concepts) being derived ONLY from complex impressions rule:
Although complex impressions and complex ideas are in general a copy of the other (complex ideas are copies of complex impressions), in some unusual cases, they are not so. For instance, I can imagine a place where I have never been or in the case of a man who is color blind of the color blue may make up his idea of that color with his experience of the other colors. The term "complex idea," by the way, signifies something that is constituted of simple ideas. For instance, an apple that has a color, taste, size, ect. 13
Perception then, is what makes possible the building blocks of cognition. Lee advanced the preposition that, "whatever exists has certain reality" which he defined as "objective reality." Further, this objective reality, being what Lee would define as a simple impression, would in turn give way cognitively to "imminent reality," a higher order intellectual process, thereby subsuming the objective reality in much the same way that "y is greater than x, and x is including y." or, that a quarter is greater tan a dime as the dine (i.e., 10 cents) is included within a quarter (i.e., 25 cents). 14
In this cognitive process, Lee further drew a conclusion that implies a corollary of Existence, that of "Identity." For, according to Lee, "the cause [i.e. imminent reality] must have the same reality as the effect [for] everything has to have a cause." 15
By way of extension, Lee predicated his art of Jeet Kune Do upon the foundation of the axiom of existence: Jeet Kune Do is the awareness of "pure being" (beyond subject and object), an immediate grasp of being in its "thusness" and "suchness" (not " particularized reality"). 16
Axiomatic Principle #2: Awareness
However, according to the philosophy of Bruce Lee, this one act of perception further implies an awareness of consciousness that is perceiving. The awareness of existents, in other words, further implies the existence of an "I" who is aware,. In Lee's words:
If thought exists, I who think and the world about which I think also exist; the one exists but for the other, having no possible separation between them. Therefore, the world and I are both active correlation; I am that which sees the world and the world is that which is seen by me. I exist for the world, and the world exists for me. If there were no things to be seen, thought about, and imagined, I would not see, think or imagine. That is to say, I would not exist. 17
According to Lee, even to doubt the existence of what you see before you serves to confirm the existence of consciousness:
To doubt is to think and thought is the only thing in the universe whose existence cannot be denied, because to deny is to think. When one says that thought exists, it automatically includes saying that one exists because there is not thought that does not contain as one of its elements a subject who thinks. 18
Axiomatic Principle #3: Interdependency
Going a little bit further into the subject of existence and awareness, Lee concludes that the two are not separate existents at all, but rather two poles of one process of existence much like positive and negative are tow poles of one magnetic process. In his words:
One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire not understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things -therefore on finding myself. 19
And:
It is no use to talk merely about objects of consciousness, whether they be thought sensations or wax candles. An object must have a subject, and subject object is a pair of complementariness (not opposites), like all others, which are tow halves of one whole, and are a function each of the other. When we hold to the core, the opposite sides are the same if they are seen from the center of the moving circle. I do not experience; I am experience. I am not the subject of an experience; I am that experience. I am awareness. Nothing else can be I or can exist. 20
By way of providing validation of this axiom, Lee offers up the following proof: Thus we do not sweat because it is hot; the sweating is the heat. It is Justas true to say that the sun is light because of the sun. This peculiar Chinese viewpoint is unfamiliar because it is our settled convention to think that heat comes first and then, by causality, the body sweats. To put it the other way round is startling, like saying "cheese and bread" instead of "bread and cheese." 21
Lee admits that such a perspective may appear to most a "shocking and seemingly illogical reversal of common sense, but he offers a further validation via the analogy of "the moon in the water." 22
The phenomenon of moon-in-the-water is likened to human experience. The water is the subject, and the moon the object. When there is not water, there is not moon-in-the-water and likewise when there is no moon. But when the moon rises the water does not wait to receive its image, and when even the tiniest drop of water is poured out the moon does not wait to cast its reflection. For the moon does not intend to cast its reflection, and the water does not receive its image on purpose. The event is caused as much by the water as by the moon, and as the water manifests the brightness of the moon, the moon, manifests the clarity of the water. 23
In concluding his postulate, Lee states:
Everything does have a real relationship, a mutuality in which the subject creates the object just as much as the object creates the subject. Thus the knower no longer feels himself to be separated from the known; the experiencer no longer feels himself to stand apart from the experience. Consequently, the whole notion of getting something out of life, of seeking from experience, becomes absurd. To put it in another way, it becomes vividly clear that in concrete fact I have no other self than the oneness of things of which I am aware. 24
Axiomatic Principle # 4: Identity
This final axiomatic principal has been touched upon earlier and is, furthermore, directly implied by the first three axiomatic principles. The principle of Identity is simple a snapshot way of saying that things we observe in order not to be perceived simply as some vague homogenous mass, must have a distinct nature or identity. Every entity has certain attributes that set it apart from other entities. Furthermore there is only on action possible to an entity, and that is the action expressive of its identity. In other words, its action is "caused" and necessitated by it nature:
Causal Connection - what is necessary due to cause and effect. It is necessary that there is heat and fire. This is not an immediate impression, nor is it a matter of will. The idea arrives from internal impressions. 25
As Lee points out, every effect has a cause (the cause being the nature of the entity which acts, in his example, heat being the cause of the effect -fire) and the same cause leads to the same effect. Given the fact that action or effects are the action of entities, and that every entity has a nature -both of which facts are known simply by observation (perception) it is self evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature. In other words, a tiger is a tiger and a human being is a human being -both are expressions of their natures. Or as Aristotle first postulated it, "A is A." The identity of an object of perception consists of the totality of its attributes, facets and characteristics. This is not to suggest that an existent has identity, but rather, according to Lee, it is identity -even going so far as to conclude what we would normally consider to be "parts" of ourselves, such as our internal organs, are in fact the "I" that we hold to be the source of our real identity:
An organism works as a whole. We are not a summation of part, but a very suble co-ordination of all these different bits that go into the making of the organism - we HAVE not a liver or a heart. We ARE liver and heart and brain and so on. 26
And:
There is no actor or the one being acted upon but the action itself. 27
And:
Completeness, the now is and absence of the conscious mind to strive to divide that which is indivisible. For once the completeness of things is taken apart, it is not longer complete. All the pieces of a care that has been taken apart may be there, but it is no longer a car in its original nature, which is its function or life. 28
Existence, consciousness and interdependence all reveal this oneness of identity. Existence differentiates a thing from nothing, from the absence of the thing. This is the primary identification, on which all others depend; it is the recognition in conceptual terms that the thing is. And as logical extension of these axiomatic principles, and making full use of the process of human understanding as he defined it, Lee would go on to formulate his metaphysical view of the world. A view which was largely Taoist in essence. According to Lee:
In Chinese Taoism and Ch'an (Zen) the world is seen as an inseparable, interrelated field, no part of which can actually be separated from the other. That is, there would be no bright starts without dims stars, and , without the surrounding darkness, no stars at all. Oppositions have become mutually exclusive, and there is no longer any conflict between the individual man and nature. 29
Lee's view on Taoism, its metaphysical tenets, and how it proceeds, will form the basis for Lesson Three in The Philosophy of Bruce Lee series, which I'll present in the next issue of Bruce Lee magazine.