Subj : Re: "Serialising" thread start-up... To : comp.programming.threads From : Giancarlo Niccolai Date : Wed Jan 05 2005 11:39 am Barve New Whirl wrote: >> > >> >> This is right; he never STATED that exact sentence, but enunciated this >> principle thruout the chapter named "VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG", >> paragraph 28 and nearby. >> >> > You have a vivid, and quite erroneous imagination. This is about > variety and adaptability. > > VI. 28. Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, > but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of > circumstances. Don't cite just part of the letter. I am explicitly talking (and reporting the correct reference) about the late commentary that has been extracted around that point. The edition is the electronic Gutemberg Project of the Art of War, which reports the quite authoritative commentary gathered by Lionel Giles in the 1910 (which has been the main source for a long time for western readers). This is a cut-and-paste of article 28 and comment: ------------ 28. Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances. [As Wang Hsi sagely remarks: "There is but one root- principle underlying victory, but the tactics which lead up to it are infinite in number." With this compare Col. Henderson: "The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like Gibbon."] ------------------- here is the complete link: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/132 but a simple google search would have done it. I just paraphrased the comment of Col. Henderson (and, in the part of the letter that you did not cite, I stated clearly that mine was synthesis on the late commentary). As you see, the vivid fantasy is not mine. I am sorry Col. Henderson must have died long ago, so you can't tell him he's erroneous about this point. Btw, I know that Dr. Giles commentary went a little out-of-fashion recently; some interpretations, especially Giles personal ones, are often a little above the lines, however it stays a good reference of the various authoritative comments which had been written up to 1910, and for the historical background it includes. And finally, the principle IS stated in that part of the book (VI.28 and nearby), so the comment is not erroneous at all: it is evident that Sun Tzu is talking between the lines about how much strategy may SEEM easy (i.e. to a prince or a would-be leader), but how DIFFICULT it is to implement. He is discouraging rulers from taking it easy just because its basic principles are simple. He never says that, but you understand it very well by reading him, and it is *clearly* wished by the author to do so (because he did write this book, if you allow me to dare this simplification, to get a job as a general for a king, so he had to demonstrate that yes, strategy is simple, but DOING IT is hard) (This is a personal interpretation, but the comments in that part of the text are reinforcing the idea). See i.e. VI.27: ---------------------- 27. All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved. [I.e., everybody can see superficially how a battle is won; what they cannot see is the long series of plans and combinations which has preceded the battle.] ---------------------- I cannot see how Sun Tsu may have made it clearer than this. I suppose the use of the first person in this sentence (which is uncommon in the other articles) has a clear significance. I have no access to the original chinese, but several different direct translations uses the first person in this article. Best regards, Giancarlo Niccolai .