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
[ 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.
Ruthless Wisdom
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
[ 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