The useless-/usefulness of argumentation: the DAO of disputation.

• Author: Combs, Steven C.

This essay answers the call for culturally diverse studies of argumentation by examining Daoist (1) approaches to argumentation and contrasting them with Greco-Roman theorizing. Daoism is a key component of the Chinese philosophical tradition. Communication scholars increasingly have been interested in examining Daoist thought because it not only sheds light on alternative visions of rhetoric but also promotes understanding of Asian culture and advances intriguing philosophical principles (Chen & Holt, 2002; Combs, 2000; Crawford, 1996; Jensen, 1987, 1992; Lu, 1998; Oliver, 1961, 1971; Xiao, 2002). What has received relatively little attention, however, is the potential for Daoism to contribute to an understanding of argumentation. Perhaps this is because early studies announced the incompatibility of Daoism with argumentation (Jensen, 1987, 1992; Oliver, 1961, 1971). Argumentation is viewed in this scholarship as antithetical to Daoist principles such as unity, harmony, and noncontentiousness. Through analysis of the works of Laozi and Zhuangzi, (2) I go beyond the admonitions against argument found in previous research, and articulate principles of argumentation that stem from the Daoist worldview. It will be shown that Daoism, while differing in many key assumptions about the role and methods of disputation, is a vital addition to Greco-Roman theorizing about argumentation, enriching our understanding of human discursive practices.

I begin by outlining and comparing critical Greco-Roman and Daoist views on cosmology, knowledge and reason, and language, in order to demonstrate the larger system of thought that collaborates in argumentation theories. Next, I sketch features of the Dao (3) of disputation by looking at argument as both useless and useful. Daoists are fond of using paradox as a motif for analysis, and Zhuangzi specifically considers useful/ useless in his writings. Finally, I examine potential implications of this study. This analysis contrasts Daoist and Greco-Roman argumentation, engages the nexus between broader philosophical positions and argumentation theories, and offers a more contextualized and deepened understanding of Daoist argument than previous scholarship. It maintains that Daoist argumentation offers a vital enhancement to the trajectories of current western rhetorical inquiry.

CRITICAL VIEWS AND ARGUMENTATION

Critical views of Laozi and Zhuangzi, specifically, positions they hold on cosmology, knowledge and reason, and language, (4) contrast with corresponding classical Greek perspectives." (5) These views are important philosophical underpinnings of Daoism and clarify key foundations of Daoist argumentation theories and practices. Seeing these foundational principles also allows one to imagine a trajectory for or constellation of Daoist ideas in order to assess my claims about how Daoism might inform contemporary argumentation theory.

The distinction between classical Greek and Daoist views begins, at the most basic level, in their different cosmological views. Ames (1993) characterizes the Greek view as a "two-world" theory while the Chinese espouse a "one-world" view. To the Greeks, there is a permanent real world that stands apart from a varying world of appearance. This view assumes "that there exists some preassigned design that stands independent of the world it seeks to order" (Ames, 1993, p. 47). It is starkly exemplified by Plato's distinction between the true world of forms and the seductive pseudo-reality of the sensual world, and later by the Christian distinction between heaven and earth. It is also seen, in a different way, in Aristotle's distinctions between potentiality and actuality. The universal or permanent world also provides a benchmark for appropriate conduct. Actions can be judged as fight or wrong to the extent that they conform to the design or order of the ultimate reality.

In Daoism, there is one world, and it alone constitutes reality. There is no independent or external agent, such as a god, grand design, or determinative principle to provide order and life. There are no essences that define, stabilize, and make unique the entities of reality. The Greek and Chinese perspectives can be contrasted succinctly:

[C]osmology is not simply a linear zero-sum victory of order over chaos driven by some external cause, but rather is the endless alternation between rising and failing, emerging and collapsing, moving and attaining equilibrium that is occasioned by its own internal energy of transformation. (Ames & Hall, 2003, p. 28) Order in the universe is the natural consequence of the dynamic interaction of all life forms-"the many making one."

Reality consists of continuous interaction of the opposing forces of yin and yang. Yin is passive energy--motionless and still, sometimes described as feminine, earthy, or dark. Yang is active and overt energy--male, fiery, or light. According to Laozi, the Dao is the source of these two elements: "Tao gave birth to One, One gave birth to Two, Two gave birth to Three, Three gave birth to all the myriad things" (Ch. 42, Wu, 1989, p. 87). (6) Laozi goes on to explain that everything is formed and harmonized by the interaction of the two: "All the myriad things carry the Yin on their backs and hold the Yang in their embrace, Deriving their vital harmony from the proper blending of the two vital Breaths" (Ch. 42, Wu, 1989, p. 87). Of course, nothing is entirely yin or yang. The process of change places one or the other in ascendancy, but at its peak, it recedes, just like the darkest moment of night is immediately followed by a touch of light.

The universe is marked by the novelty of every moment, and change is not an evolutionary stage in a teleological process, but real in and of itself. The constant blending of opposites, the mingling of all things from and into the one thing, constitutes the rhythm of the universe. All things stem from the oneness of the Dao, and exist as a result of the interaction of opposites. The nature of the universe is utter interdependence, because everything exists because of and in relation to everything else. Absent the meddlings of humans, the universe is balanced and harmonious.

To "be with the Dao," or to be attuned to the natural workings of the universe, allows one to move with the rhythm of the oneness and its many interacting elements as easily as water flows downhill. One is able to "act without acting" (wu-wei) by flowing effortlessly with the stream of reality. Daoism, therefore, posits a continuity and connection between all things. It stresses the common core and interdependence of all creatures. It encourages us to seek harmony and balance in all that we do, and to move effortlessly by tapping into the natural rhythms of the universe.

These cosmological perspectives also condition views regarding knowledge and the role of reason. By virtue of the belief in a permanent structure underlying changing appearances, "knowing" to the Greeks means discovering the "mirroring correspondence between an idea and an objective world" (Ames, 1993, p. 57). To know some thing, therefore, is to discover its "true" reality. Within this conception, rationality and reason play a paramount role. Rationality is a process of isolating relevant variables and their relationships with one another so as to discover underlying and attenuating causes and effects. Reason is thus "a human faculty independent of experience that can discover the essence of things" (pp. 55-56). Knowledge is achieved when reason properly sorts out the information attained from sensations/perceptions. Furthermore, the proper application of reason is a prerequisite to virtuous conduct and true happiness.

In contrast, the classical Chinese view cannot hold that knowledge is the ability to conceptualize the permanent structure of reality, since no such structure exists, but instead sees it as "a perceived intelligibility and continuity that can be mapped within the dynamic process itself" (Ames, 1993, p. 55). Knowing rests on the ability to perceive the connections and interactions, the comprehensiveness, which constitute the world:

Without an assumed separation between the source of order in the world and the world itself causal agency is nut so immediately construed in terms of relevant cause and effect. All conditions interrelate and collaborate in greater or lesser degree to constitute a particular event as a continence of experiences. "Knowing" is thus being able to trace out and manipulate those conditions far or near that will come to affect the shilling configuration of one's own place. (Ames. 1993, p. 56) Knowledge is "unprincipled," in that it entails "the acceptance of the world on its own terms without recourse to rules of discrimination that separate one sort of thing from another" (Ames & Hall, 2003, p. 41).

It also must be noted that knowledge is a participatory and creative process. What is "real" is not revealed or discovered, but made so through the process of living. Knowledge always entails enactment because knowing means "'to realize,' to 'make real.' The path is not a 'given,' but is made in the treading of it. Thus, one's own actions are always a significant factor in the shaping of one's world" (Ames, 1993, p. 57).

This view of knowledge stresses the interconnectedness of all elements of the universe, recognizing that everything is in dynamic relationships with everything else. Hence, one's scope of knowledge must be comprehensive, allowing one to grasp the totality of reality. At the same time, humans also need to function at local or particular levels, requiring them to tack back and forth between what Ames and Hall (2003) call field and focal awareness.

Field awareness is a sense of "the big picture." It allows one "to see where a situation has come from and to anticipate where it is going," thus discouraging "any proclivity one might have to isolate things, and to make exclusive judgments...