OU blog

Personal Blogs

Stylised image of a figure dancing

Ruthless Wisdom

Wednesday 11 February 2026 at 05:10
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Martin Cadwell, Thursday 12 February 2026 at 21:01

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

silhouette of a female face in profile

 

[ 8 minute read ]

Fight like a General

According to The Art of War, attributed to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, in the section on Cowardice, there are five dangerous faults which will affect a General. Here are four of them explained.

I like to consider that we, in the modern Global North, are all Generals in that we have to navigate our own ways in more and more individualistic settings. There used to be a family way which had family values, and shame could be showered down on the whole family if a single member was naughty or rude. Now, it is every man and woman for themselves. Well, it seems so.

Bravery without forethought

Ts' ao Kung said this causes a [person] to fight blindly and desperately like a mad bull. Chang Yu offered that such a person must not be encountered with brute force, but must, instead be lured into ambush and trapped (slain). 

Does anyone know how to set an ambush? I think in the modern world we are looking at people who just blindly attack with words and only sometimes we come across a person who thinks that punching is a solution. Attacking with words is just so easy to do. On the road: 'You naughty monkey! You cut me up. Why didn't you just wait your turn. You make yourself so angry!' might be a polite way of saying that someone is an idiot and should not be allowed out without their parents or care-giver, but it gives us no clues how to set a trap. 

Consider this: When we are affronted, it is often because we have been in a verbal confrontation. If the perceived attacker is in a work environment or is a 'professional' a written complaint can be made. I have an example of a complaint I am still setting up as an ambush: In an interview setting, the interviewer admitted to be still under training. My suspicions had been aroused because the interviewer's technique was dated and not at all conducive to following a pattern of open discussion. It irritated me. I asked to speak to a manager to highlight the problem. The manager re-enacted the same scene to see if I was triggered by that environment. My actual point was on the choice of words that caused people to feel as though they had no choice. Having no choice triggers my PTSD. My complaint about the manager must not include any reference to why I was annoyed at being put through an enactment of the original interview. I need the investigators to ask the manager, 'Why did you re-enact the environment to which you think he was complaining about?' Remember this: I was merely suggesting that the interviewers stop using the word 'must' and instead use the word 'should'. 'Should' is softer and implies that there is a choice of action. I was not complaining about the interviewer or the interview in itself. I need the manager to answer the investigators, 'I wanted to see if his PTSD was triggered by the interview technique.' Bingo! The trap is sprung. The manager knows I have PTSD and 'must not' deliberately trigger it or act in a way that is known or suspected to trigger my PTSD for any experiment. If I include in my complaint about the manager that I suspect my PTSD was deliberately triggered, there will be no expectation of inadvertent admission of guilt by the manager because the manager will not use it as a reason for re-enacting the original interview.

Because my PTSD relates, in a lot of ways, to being physically, psychologically and verbally attacked, I perceive verbal confrontation as an attack and the prelude to a battle. According to Chang Yu (above) I should not engage in a 'to and fro' argument with ever rising voices and loss of logical control. In other words, I should withdraw without letting my emotions control my actions.

Ssu-ma Fa, summarises it thus: 'Simply going to one's death does not bring about victory.'

Cowardice which leads to capture

Ts' ao Kung defines cowardice here as: '... being of a [person] whose timidity prevents them from advancing to seize an advantage'

Of course, we have to understand that in the modern world in which we are not attempting to acquire someone else's land or treasure we would consider someone who seeks to take advantage of a situation to destroy another person to be a monster. Here though, is the modern world as it really is.

     'I see you have an item for sale for 1,000 monetary units. Would you take 500?'

This is someone trying to take advantage of a situation. The item is for sale. There are generally two reasons for this: flipping it to make a profit; and selling it to cover a debt. Let's look at profit. The seeking and acquisition of wealth is a drive that is shared by persons who have no other way to satisfy themselves. They are weak and are no different to drug addicts whom, let's face it, most of us despise because they are 'weak' and probably treacherous. They are not. By the way, drug addicts don't despise other drug addicts solely on the basis that the despised person, is an addict.

The other reason for selling is to overcome a debt. Someone selling property to overcome a debt is plainly a person in a weak position. Selling property is often a loss to a person's wealth since more is usually paid to purchase it in the first place. There is however, the third position; selling an item because it is no longer needed.

     'No, I will take 850 monetary units, though.'

There are a couple of things that may be going on that rankle me. I loathe negotiating a price for these reasons: The seller's price is higher than the value of the item to the seller. The much reduced buyer's price is much lower than the value of the item is to the buyer. Looking at both positions I call both the seller and the buyer cheats. Game on, then. Let battle commence. They deserve to destroy each other. If I buy something from someone I always ask why they are selling it.

Continuing - Cowardice which leads to capture:  Wang Hsi said, 'who is quick to flee at the sight of danger,' T'ai Kung said, '[They] who let an advantage slip will subsequently bring upon [themself] real disaster.'

In battles, there are usually two opposing forces. In an office environment a single statement can serve to cause the whole office to decide on taking and defending opposite standpoints. A cry of 'sexist!' will usually work to encourage more supporters to the accuser's side than the accused's. Most of us can weather that, if it gets to a decent manager's attention and we can show the claim to be out of enmity, vicarious animosity, or vindictiveness. However, if the claim is quietly made among co-workers there is a potential that anyone in the same camp of agreement by dint of being gullible and persuaded by a  good orator, will perceive the accused as less effective in their work and as a manipulator and a bully. A general air of resentment will permeate the workplace and no manager will recognise the source or effect, and so it will remain like a foreign agent 'sleeper' in a spy film, waiting to assassinate the accused. Time to advance methinks, before the 'sleeper' gets into a good sniping position behind the curtains. The cheat or liar or vicious accuser needs a bucket of fluorescent paint thrown over them so they can be easily seen for what they are.

Meng Shih said, '[the person] who is bent on returning alive; this is the [person] who will never take a risk.'

A hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults

It is not really difficult to imagine someone who shuts themselves away from a fight and is then so incensed by continued insults that they rush out ill-prepared and attempt to fight. Of course, in the modern world, a sustained barrage of insults is definitely bullying, so this 'hider' if they are canny will never come running out with a blunt sword. However, if they did they would be a bad General of their own self. It is a bad fault for a General to have a hasty temper, that can be provoked by insults.

A delicacy of honour which is sensitive to shame

A sense of honour is not the bad thing. Honour and integrity must be sought, valued, and guarded against attackers. Sun Tsu condemns an exaggerated sensitiveness to slanderous reports. If we return back to the slanderous claim that someone is sexist, a bad General will act in a desperate manner because they are immediately thrust into making decisions from within an emotional cul-de-sac.

Indeed, we have moved on from being able to shame our families in the modern world so this is not a consideration that bars inappropriate behaviour anyway, so there is a reduced chance of having such a delicacy of honour as is proposed to be susceptible to shame in the same way as it would have been only a generation or two ago.

Personally, I have an ongoing situation in which I made a suggestion as to how some language and written approaches could be enlivened and at the same time made less provocative. My suggestion has been taken to be an emotional response to a single comment. I am allowing this scenario to unfold as such. The responders are basing their responses to me from their emotional standpoint in the hope it connects with my own emotional standpoint. Yet, I did not use my emotions to declare a fault. I have a greater plan; but it will take time for it to unfold. It is vital that I do not have a real time conversation in which I may lose track of my original point by being distracted, or worse, providing tools to undo my original point.

Sun Tsu: 'an exaggerated sensitiveness to slanderous reports, the thin-skinned [person] who is stung by opprobrium, however undeserved.'

Mei Yao: 'The seek after glory should be careless of public opinion'. Which is somewhat paradoxical because glory is played out in public. I think it means that public opinion should not be a reason not to seek glory.

Reference

Giles. L (trans). Gutenberg Press (2024). 'Sun Tsu on the Art of War', 1910. Available at: https://www.gutenburg.org/files/132/132-h/132-h.htm

Accessed 01 December 2024 - Now no longer available 

Try this available site: https://suntzusaid.com/book/8/12

Tags: battle, General, modern world conflict, office politics
Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Stylised image of a figure dancing

Emotional Dogs attack Logical Cat

Sunday 8 February 2026 at 05:22
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Martin Cadwell, Sunday 8 February 2026 at 09:27

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

silhouette of a female face in profile

 

[ 8 minute read ]

The knee of emotion

Logic makes open challenge

P1:

P2:

C:

If I write a sentence by stating my opinion and follow it with a sentence that seeks to qualify it as valid in a wider community what am I trying to do?

Let's look at this from the position of someone who is making a knee-jerk reaction to something.

First, I need to explain what I mean by 'knee-jerk'. If a doctor hits your knee in the right place with a little hammer your knee will reflexively jerk and your foot will flick forward. It is uncontrollable, and is a reflex action. Ducking your head, in order to avoid injury, when you perceive something moving towards it, is not a reflexive action. It is a movement that is both learnt and controllable. Neither is it instinctive; babies and infants will not move out of the way of items that are about to impact them. However, babies will blink and jump if you blow hard into their faces; this is a reflexive action and is an act of self-preservation.

With this in mind, someone who has determined that a particular belief is worthy to be embraced and nurtured as either their own or as a subscriber to a wider view of something, often makes that belief integral to their daily life and how they deal with the world and its complications. We, as humans have a need to feel that we belong to a group. We also have a need to recognise that we wear a lot of hats; mother, father, boss, politician, doctor, drug-dealer; whatever position we find that allows us to imagine that we possess some degree of usefulness. It is an 'ego' thing. I shall not elucidate on what I feel that 'ego' means since my interpretation of it is clear from the 'wearing hats' thing.

I am however, going to use 'ego' as a coin in the game of life. My mum used to play board games with me and lose. Her ego was not dampened by being bettered; she deliberately lost to me. Her 'mother' hat allowed her to take a lower competitive position as an individual in order to boost my confidence as someone who can win; she took 'ego' from her individual bank, deposited it in her mother bank, and then transferred it to my individual bank completely without me noticing. She made logical decisions.

Ego is controllable but it takes a conscious decision to recognise ego and position it in an hierarchy of values. In the case of my mum beating me at board games; she did not actually spend any ego, she merely reshaped it. 'I am doing the right thing by not quashing his confidence (and ego) by not consistently thrashing him at every game we play'. Her ego remained intact. What this means is that ego when controlled in the right way can pay dividends. Unfortunately, if the dividends are not passed on we have an overblown personality. 

An example of an over-blown ego, or as I just mentioned 'personality' is someone who has paid dividends from their personal or individual ego into their public role by wearing a hat of responsibility. Believing oneself to have the right idea and promulgating it as concrete and infallible is someone with an overblown ego or personality. Often, though, these persons need to belong to a group of like-minded thinkers, such as a church. Now, I am using the word 'church' as a short-cut because it has connotations that most of us are familiar with; that of a group of like-minded people gathered together to support each other in maintaining a belief system. A family is a church in the same way. I am using the word 'church' because it has a recognised structure to it.

They need to 'belong' because their belief and indeed their daily life is based on their emotions. As far as I can tell, emotions need to be topped-up and stroked and individuals need to frequently talk to their emotions to re-assure themselves that they have chosen to believe the right things. This is beyond mere companionship. Unfortunately, there are occasions when individuals barging through life with their emotions as a banner presented as themselves, come across an incident, that taken from their emotional standpoint, is an antithesis to their carefully cultured ego, even though they have not consciously shaped it. 

     'Oh no! This person has views that are contrary to my own. I must drive a wedge between the value of this person's opinion and that of my group's belief.'

This is when a sentence starts with 'I' and is followed by a sentence that includes 'we'.

     'I believe that taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.'

Firstly, the individual has every right to state how they feel. It is freedom of speech, which is valued throughout nearly all of the English-speaking countries. Here I have intentionally poked the sleeping tiger in many people. Some will think of the United States of America; some will think of countries in the United Kingdom; a few people, I believe, will think of Canada, Australia or New Zealand. People who thought of African countries or India are thinking of the spread of English through imperialism. In all examples there is room for debate since there are different views and an opportunity to introduce and share nuances within the scope of the argument. Viewpoints should be offered as premises in an argument; almost inevitably they are not, because people have over-blown egos. Perhaps an argument could be made for quelling free-speech, or an argument could be made for shaping free-speech.

Canny people will recognise this post as a loose argument for shaping free-speech.

     'I believe that taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.' This is a rallying cry. It is a trumpet calling troops to a battle. It is a fox-hunters horn to draw other warriors and hunters to quash a rebellion or have some 'sport'.

I read somewhere that most people find conversations more interesting when they have done most of the speaking. Loosely: Mental stimulation is greater when we have to form sentences rather than absorb them. Many domestic arguments occur in homes that have stale marriages and mundane daily activities simply because domestic arguments are mentally stimulating. 

Calling our 'brothers and sisters' to arms either for sport or to attack a contrary belief has its own reward. Many people feel that they are supported by belonging to a group. However, many people are not content with belonging to a film-lovers group or a tennis club. Many people see themselves as warriors for a cause. These are dangerous people. They enter environments with their egos and emotions, not only exposed but honed, before any sense of logic gets a chance to raise a hand for permission to speak. Emotions are not polite.

Knee-jerk reactions thrive on raw sensation. In the real world, in the doctors surgery, it is the nervous system that is tested with a little hammer gently knocking a knee. In the mental world, it is logic that knocks the knee of emotion.

Devoid of emotion, logic does not care for individuals. It espouses politeness. It tears down belief systems. However, logic is not a weapon used for destruction; it is an equaliser.

     'Taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.'

This is a rallying cry that demands a division of persons. A line is drawn. Everybody who agrees go to the left (or right - this is not politics); everybody who disagrees stand on that side.

Many people will support one view and many people will support any opposing view. Logic tells us that the statement above: 'We don't want high taxes' can only belong to one of these groups. Hence, it is only valid if it is supported by at least one other person ('we'). In this way, it calls for at least one other person to stand behind the banner of its meaning. Consequently, it is without doubt, a rallying cry to a specific group of people.

Here is the problem: If there is only one person with a logical view or approach and there is a call to arms of a group with an opposing view; one that is emotionally charged, we have an opportunity for subjugation of an individual. A person using logic cannot make any calls to arms on an emotional level. Hence, logic is overwhelmed by an emotionally charged majority group.

In my head, logic is a referee in a fight between emotions. In other people's heads it is an enemy to their ego.

Here is a good and valid argument:

P1: All quadrupeds have four legs

P2: A cat has four legs

C: Therefore, a cat is a quadruped 

There must be at least two premises to make an argument, so the argument below is not valid. Moreover, the premises may not cancel each other out or negate any other premise.

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good

Interestingly, an emotionally charged person may feel that this is a sexist opinion. It is not. It is an invalid argument AND it does not present itself as gender exclusive because no premise excludes girls.

This (below) not a good argument because there is no premise that tells us what good is:

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

P2: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow girls to imagine becoming firefighters

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good.

This (below) is a good and valid argument:

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

P2: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow girls to imagine becoming firefighters

P3: Firefighters save lives and property by extinguishing flames and with rescue operations

P4: Imagining becoming a firefighter helps to drive people towards becoming a firefighter

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good.

However, since P1 and P2 can be combined as:

'Films and documentaries about firefighters allow children to imagine becoming firefighters', it is possible to backtrack and assume that by missing out either P1 or P2 in the argument above, the argument IS gender exclusive because if either of these premises are removed the argument is still good and valid, yet this is not necessarily so. However. the reason given as premise P3 above: 'Firefighters save lives and property by extinguishing flames and with rescue operations'. or any other premise that acts as a qualifier in this argument that has a conclusion that states it is good, MUST remain because 'good' needs to be either qualified or quantified. Where there is no qualifying or quantifying premise there is no good argument and unconnected statements remain only personal opinion. In countries where there is free-speech, opinion may not be attacked. There should not be a call to arms because there should not be a feeling of one's ego being dented. However, be warned; there are monsters out there which approach everything with an emotional lens which they use to analyse everyone else's statements. They have no, or eshew, manners and seek to overwhelm reason with sentiment.

The only thing that can be said in response to a bad or invalid argument is, 'That is your doxy.'

My understanding of LOGIC should not be considered to be entirely correct and I advise and encourage everyone to choose a course on, or read about, Logic, Negotiation and Social Interaction for themselves.

Tags: logic, emotion, call to arms, rallying call, ego, battle, sensation, mental, stimulation, doxy
Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 281116