 |
| [Kanji: "Shuhari", image source: wikipedia.org] |
Today's meditation:
“Argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they're yours.”
~ Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah
A favorite book, from my youth.
This quote came to mind today, after I had a chance to reflect on a series of *vigorous* idea exchanges with someone - regarding our *very* different views on the foundational definitions of what is architecture.
In Japanese martial arts, there is a concept known as "Shu-ha-ri" (Kanji: 守破離 Hiragana: しゅはり)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuhari
"shu (守) "protect", "obey"—traditional wisdom—learning fundamentals, techniques, heuristics, proverbs."
"ha (破) 'detach', 'digress'—breaking with tradition—detachment from the illusions of self, to break with tradition - to find exceptions to traditional wisdom, to find new approaches. In some styles of Japanese music (gagaku and noh), it is also the middle of the song."
"ri (離) 'leave', 'separate'—transcendence—there are no techniques or proverbs, all moves are natural, becoming one with spirit alone without clinging to forms; transcending the physical - there is no traditional technique or wisdom, all movements are allowed."
Which roughly translates as "to keep, to fall, to break away" or "follow the rules, break the rules, transcend the rules".
Some architects insist on rigid adherence to certain ideas, definitions, frameworks, standards - that have their roots in thinking that is 30+ years old. When confronted with evolving interpretations of ideas - they react - instead of responding.
It is difficult to let go of what is old, worn, and comfortable - but that is where the "Ha" comes in - to break out of the cycle - and "Ri", to experience new growth.
New interpretations - that challenge existing preconceptions - for what architecture encompasses - is healthy, and necessary.
Clinging to the "Shu" - is to become brittle, and break. For the vitality of the roots to wither and die.
There are thousands of different types of martial arts - many of them share the same principles, concepts, and patterns - but they find different ways to express their essential differences.
Those variations do not make those martial arts less - they enrich the ecosystem.
Variation of interpretation isn't wrong, and it doesn't make one style's interpretation of the martial arts better - or worse - than another.
The same should be the mindset of IT practitioners of the different schools of thought in Enterprise Architecture, Business Architecture, agile practices, etc.
The measure of anything - is whether it is effective.
Will your block stop a kick, or a punch?
Will your approach to architecture deliver results?
We shouldn't be so attached to frameworks like SAFe, TOGAF, or notations, or anything that makes our thinking rigid - and prevents us from moving naturally - and responding to change.
There is a Zen teaching: “The Finger Points at the Moon".
The finger is the spiritual teaching, and the moon is the truth.
This is a reminder not to be too attached to words and/or teachings and not to confuse either with what they are pointing to.
If ISO definitions work for you - and you can deliver results - then use them.
But do not allow your attachments to blind you to growth - and learning new ways.
If another has discarded attachments to strict adherence to some made-up things - be cautious concluding that they must not know what they are doing. Keep what works - Discard what doesn't.
Allow for the possibility that they they have embraced "Ri".
"Ri" is where real progress begins.
