I studied this idea extensively while getting my master's in Chinese lit. While I think this article is interesting, in my opinion it kind of misses the point about wu-wei.
Many Chinese texts admonish total focus and dedication to a task. The idea is that if you obsess over developing some skill for a long time you will eventually be able to do it without thinking, and when that happens your creative impulses will guide you instead of your thoughts. For example after coding a lot you stop worrying about syntax and can consider design principles instead. It's not that Pao Ding was a master of meditation, it's just that he spent his whole life cutting up oxen.
When that author says "We have been taught to believe that the best way to achieve our goals is to reason about them carefully and strive consciously to reach them. But Butcher Ding’s story—and the science that’s beginning to back it up—shows us that many desirable states are best pursued indirectly." I think he's setting up a false opposition: the road to unconscious mastery is paved with relentless conscious effort and lots of careful reasoning.
Semi-OT: I find it somewhat striking about the state of neuroscience, though of course unsurprising, that Chinese philosophy is capable of telling us something about ourselves that isn't unrecognizably exceeded and elaborated on today. Sure, now we can point to general regions containing billions of neurons and determine that it plays a role in conflict resolution; and we know a fair menagerie of molecules that modify consciousness in predictable ways, though nobody fully understands the mechanisms; and modern behavioral experiments have produced a lot of interesting data about psychology. But just for a second, compare to the situation with, say, traditional Chinese medicine versus modern medicine. A situation where we have multiple orders of magnitude better understanding today, and the only thing the traditional way has going for it is that it's had quite a lot of time to gather empirical data. Traditional medicine may sometimes produce effective treatments (along with a huge amount of snake oil placebo), but it's essentially dumb luck combined with a semi-effective selection process, whereas modern medicine, though far from perfect, creates and proposes treatments on a drastically more detailed, and essentially rational and correct basis.
How long will it be (if ever) before we can say the same about neuroscience?
These principles are very similar to those of the Alexander Technique. Its hard to describe because it deals with a subtlety that you aren't normally aware of, and so language around it is very vague (it often gets dismissed as wishy washy crap because of that). Its good to see some science that backs up the ideas.
I have read about this principle under a lot of different names. What I do not get is how it is supposed to work if there is nothing in our "personal ROM" that our "system" can restore.
The example in that article about relaxing makes sense to me. Early in life we probably were relaxed and thus deep inside we know, what being relaxed means and our body finds a way to restore this state. But how is this principle supposed to work if the data for the state you desire is not there in the first place?
For instance, how do you learn Karate if you spent your whole life being a non-physical person? I took lessons for about a year and I hardly improved. The teacher suggests to "stop thinking". That may be reasonable if acitivities in recent years subdued your knowledge on movement but otherwise I don't understand how this is supposed to work. For example, I never knew and still don't know how to make an effective punch.
Another area where I don't know how to apply this principle is studying.
I sometimes catch myself re-reading a passage many times as it doesn't make sense to me. This is clearly "doing" in an obsessive way and the result is poor. But how is learning by "not doing" supossed to work? Just reading a text without constantly analyzing it on purpose doesn't lead to success either.
Like I say its very subtle (and difficult to describe), and "not doing" is different from actively trying to do something in a different way. A lot of the teaching is just about slowing down and watching what you are doing (and what happens automatically).
For example, try squatting but keeping your heels on the floor. You will likely not be able to do it. Now if you could lie on your back, with feet on the floor and get someone to raise the rest of your body to a squat position, then it would probably happen. The action of squatting will trigger lots of habitual muscular responses that your brain didn't specifically ask for. If you are put in that position from a non conventional way, the muscles raising your heels won't be triggered.
Or a basic example. Stand straight and look ahead. Now imagine that you are in the start up line for 100m sprint. Now really try to imagine you are there. Now check your legs. Is there tension in one of them, ready to sprint off? Did you consciously do that?
The lessons explore these habitual responses, so that once you recognise them you have the choice to carry on habitually, or do something in a new way.
What people call being "in the zone" or "flow" is a generally interesting state of being. Everyone experiences this oneness multiple times in their lives, usually without realising it. Sportsmen and people who have highly developed skill sets (like programmers) hit this state of mind more often and many train specifically to get themselves into this state on demand. You can also reach this state via meditation or prayer.
I look forward to more results coming from this area of research.
Many Chinese texts admonish total focus and dedication to a task. The idea is that if you obsess over developing some skill for a long time you will eventually be able to do it without thinking, and when that happens your creative impulses will guide you instead of your thoughts. For example after coding a lot you stop worrying about syntax and can consider design principles instead. It's not that Pao Ding was a master of meditation, it's just that he spent his whole life cutting up oxen.
When that author says "We have been taught to believe that the best way to achieve our goals is to reason about them carefully and strive consciously to reach them. But Butcher Ding’s story—and the science that’s beginning to back it up—shows us that many desirable states are best pursued indirectly." I think he's setting up a false opposition: the road to unconscious mastery is paved with relentless conscious effort and lots of careful reasoning.