MEDITATIONS: SUN TZU’S THE ART OF WAR, CHAPTER TEN

Terrain

The variables which determine outcomes are almost always as multitudinous as they are complex in relation to one another—hence why it is not inaccurate to describe reality as ineffable. Yet we human beings require a way to be in the world; and because we are also each in the possession of our respective will to power, it is important to us that our individual way conforms to what the Taoists call the Great Course: what is otherwise known as the noumenal, the objective, the transcendent, or God.

From our human desires in conflict with being itself emerges the dichotomies of conceptualization. All categories by which we make maps of meaning are derived from this process, maps the value of which are determined by their seeming accordance with reality.

According to Sun Tzu, in war, there are six variables of the earth in relation to terrain, just as there are six errors of the ego which lead entire armies to destruction:

We may distinguish six kinds of terrain, to wit: Accessible ground; entangling ground; temporizing ground; narrow passes; precipitous heights; positions at a great distance from the enemy. (Sun Tzu 92)

. . .

Now an army is exposed to six severe calamities, not arising from natural causes, but from faults for which the general is responsible. These are: Flight; insubordination; collapse; ruin; disorganization; rout. (93)

Here, Sun Tzu has considered the infinite number of ways one might categorize terrain and the defeat of an army and chosen to use success as his guiding principle. That which is relevant to victory or defeat either in the short or long term is given a name and treated as real and as significant. All else goes ignored.

It sounds an easy feat; what other principle but winning would a general or even a soldier place as his highest value? The answer may be surprising to those who have as of yet failed to value victory, success, and accordance with the Great Course. For diverse human beings value disparately, which means that accordance with the truth will not always—may even rarely—rise to the top of an individual’s priorities. Fame, prestige, honor, glory, power, and wealth are but a few of the many temptations which may us astray from the proper way.

And what is proper?

That which brings the will and the world into accord with one another. Desires become fulfilled, altered, abolished until our action befit the noumenal situation as best as can be managed within a phenomenological human frame.

In the case of war and terrain:

The general who has attained a responsible post must be careful to study them. (93)

. . .

Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called accessible. . . . Be there before the enemy . . . and carefully guard your line of supplies. (92)

. . .

When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called temporizing ground. . . . It will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver out attack with advantage. (92)

These, among others are the matters of the earth, the objective circumstances, the context, the essence which acts as the foundation on which proper conceptualization rests. So, too, do the calamites conform to the constraints imposed by nature—human nature, in this case:

When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the commander-in-chief can tell whether or not he is in a position to fight, the result is ruin. (93)

. . .

Regard your soldiers as your children, . . . and they will stand by you even unto death.

If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder, then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose. (96)

In this way, proper consideration of the terrain is no different than proper consideration of subordinates. Extrapolating further, it can be argued that proper consideration of subordinates is not different than proper consideration of the self. Again, “proper” is defined as an accordance with the Way, the Path, or the Course. It is not a matter of attaining an ideal; it is a matter of aiming at an ideal and using that idol as a measure by which to assess relevance and significance.

This is true for oneself as much as it is for others. Sun Tzu echoes Socrates (or vice versa) when he writes:

If we know that our own men are in a condition to attack, but are unaware that the enemy is not open to attack, we have gone only halfway.

If we know that the enemy is open to attack, but are unaware that our own men are not in a condition to attack, we gone only halfway towards victory.

If we know that the enemy is open to attack, and also know that our men are in a condition to attack, but are unaware the nature of the ground makes fighting impracticable, we have still gone only halfway towards victory. (96)

Sun Tzu. The Art of War, translated by William Ridgeway, Sweetwater Press, 2008.