Posts Tagged ‘subjective meaning’

Against Dogma

Monday, December 14th, 2009

beware_of_dogmaOne of the chapters in Chu’s Thick Face, Black Heart affected me deeply. It was called, “Master the Distinctions Between Virtue and Vanity.” She used a parable to explain the concept: a holy man had taken a vow of honesty. He sat beneath a tree, meditating, when a man ran up. He told the holy man that he was wrongly accused of thievery and being chased by ruffians who would kill him. The holy man could see that he was, indeed, innocent. The man climbed into the tree and hid himself among the leaves. But when the ruffians came and asked the holy man if he had seen the supposed thief, the holy man ratted him out, all because of his vow of honesty. They dragged the innocent man from the tree and killed him. When the holy man died and went before judgment he was admonished for this act. God said, “It was not for the sake of virtue that you delivered the innocent man to his tormentors, it was to preserve a vain image of yourself as a virtuous person.”

In other words, in business as in life, do not adhere blindly to any dogma. Your belief in absolute truths only serves to help you gain praise from others with the same convictions. It allows you to be self-righteous about your supposed virtue and feel superior to others. Meanwhile you are living outside of the world, bringing suffering to others because of your selfish convictions as to absolute right and wrong. This belief in an absolute truth comes into play in every political election, where the various parties battle for the supremacy of one set of beliefs. Those who acknowledge that there are times to utilize each belief system appropriately are degraded as traitors, or worse:  loathed “independents” with no chance to win.

Ignorance has guided the idea of virtue since time immemorial. In ancient China, a girl’s virginity was so sacred that if she was raped by soldiers in invading armies—a relatively common occurrence—she would be forced to drink poison to kill herself. When Galileo publicized his finding that the earth revolved around the sun, “virtuous” members of the Catholic Church condemned him and imprisoned him for contradicting their supposedly infallible beliefs. In the U.S., in the 1950’s, innocent citizens were impoverished and imprisoned because of senator Joseph McCarthy’s misguided obsession with capitalist “virtue.”

Chu makes the point that virtue, contrary to what most people think, is not something you wear outside of yourself for public display. Unlike the western philosophical tradition, where we try to guide our lives by absolutes such as those contained in the following aphorisms:

  • Turn the other check,
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,
  • A stitch in time saves nine,
  • The squeaky wheel gets the grease,

etc. . . .

The Chinese viewpoint acknowledges that these philosophies are never absolute, but that life, and morality, require more of a person than simple adherence to law. They require moment-to-moment mediation on one’s inner convictions.

Fear of Success Psychology

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

adultitisThe fear of success is much more powerful than the fear of failure. So says Chu in her book on using the Asian mindset for success in business, Thick Face, Black Heart.

This is because success brings change, and change brings uncertainty. Most of the things you think you want will come at the price of leaving behind your familiar life and venturing into the unknown. As a result, most people think they are striving for success, but in reality are just going through the motions. They haven’t mentally prepared themselves for change.

Failure takes many forms. There is the failure of those who never attempt anything great. Their failures are comfortably private. The failures of those who attempt extraordinary things are public. Those suffering ordinary failures often feel free to comment on the grandiose failures of those attempting great things. Says Chu, “When we don’t pay our bills, a computer somewhere writes us a nasty letter. When Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills, it makes the six o’clock news.”

Putting yourself in the position to be criticized and ridiculed is, of course, unpleasant, but where would society be today without thinkers like Socrates and Galileo? They suffered deeply for their convictions, but were, in essence, more successful and satisfied people than their tormentors. Their ideas are now immortal. But how could anyone, today, stand to endure so much discomfort, pain, and persecution for the sake of an inner conviction? The key, says Chu, is to understand that the world is perfect.

An old saying goes, “If you don’t like the world you see, change the prescription of your glasses.” The point being: there is nothing wrong with the world but your view of it. I have a lot of friends who are at that age where they need to decide if they want to have children or not. For a woman, a certain time comes when (barring the use of a great deal of the latest technology) it’s simply “now or never.” A lot of them hesitate, saying, “is this really a world I want to bring a child into? Society is getting worse and worse every year!” Then they go on to cite everything from corn-fed cattle to the war in Iraq to support their theory.

I say hey, if you don’t want to have a baby, then don’t, but that is a preposterous reason. The world has always been screwed up. Think of the early sixties, when everyone thought an atom bomb could drop at any minute. Think of the thirties and the Great Depression. Think of medieval times and the black plague. And all through history, people have been saying, “How could I ever bring a child into this terrible world?!”

The world is perfect. It is ever changing. Every swing of the pendulum brings a counter swing. So, says Chu, have no fear of success and the changes it will bring.

Selfish Interest

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

rockNot caring about the opinions of others—as is recommended by the Thick Face aspect of Chu’s Thick Face, Black Heart philosophy—means finding the courage to do what must be done without regard to what people think. It means examining the role you play in your company, your family, and your world, and freeing yourself from the domination of arbitrary ideals. This is the inner work that will make you truly a free person and a powerful person.

One reason that some of today’s most powerful people are that way is that they do what must be done to succeed without regard for the opinions of others. They are (to use a popular Zen Bhuddist term) detached. But this is not, as some might suppose, an insistence upon becoming amoral and self-centered. It is a recognition of the fact that you, as a caring, sensitive person, must pursue your own legitimate self interest in order to stay that way. After all, most thieves aren’t that way because they want to hurt people, they have simply turned to thievery out of desperation. They hit rock bottom and had nowhere else to go. Wouldn’t it have been better if they had exercised a little legitimate self interest along the way and kept themselves out of the red?

The key to this philosophy, of course, is the word ‘legitimate.’ When is your self interest legitimate, and when not? The key, says Chu in Thick Face, Black Heart, is to fully understand the motives for your own actions. If the motives are pure, then it is legitimate to engage in “warfare” to pursue them. In this case, I mean playing the various games of business and sales. Is she saying the ends justify the means? Not exactly. What she is saying is that what you do is not so important as WHY you do it.

Are you using manipulative sales tactics because you have been taught this is the way to success, yet it makes you feel bad inside? Then you are not working with your own inner convictions. You are following imposed standards of “work” for imposed standards of “success.” Are you enforcing a recycling program at work because you’ve been told that “going green” is the right thing to do, yet you don’t actually care about it and find the whole thing messy and inefficient? Then, again, you are not working with your inner convictions. The purpose of the Thick Face, Black Heart philosophy is not to tell you what is right and what is wrong, in terms of the actions you take in life—it is to urge you to follow your own inner dictates.

Will you make mistakes? Yes, you will. You will follow convictions that you find, in the end, were wrongheaded. However, and this is key to the philosophy—“Mistakes made on the path to self-discovery will correct themselves, while those made through blind adherence to subjective standards simply perpetuate the folly.”

Inner Conviction

Monday, December 7th, 2009

tantrumIn Thick Face, Black Heart, Chu relates modern business to the Asian concept of Yin and Yang. This belief is that all things are composed of two forces, and that things which are thought to be opposite are more intimately related than they may at first appear. Darkness cannot exist without light, nor good without evil.

With this in mind, it makes sense to note that there are also two aspects to human actions: the inward motivation and the outward appearance. Most people have experienced the shock of seeing someone do an action that appears terribly hostile and bad, but once they understand the inner motivation, it actually begins to make sense. We call it “what makes people tick.” People who deal with children understand the concept intimately: if a child hits and kicks, it usually means they are inwardly motivated to solve a deeply disturbing dilemma. Once you know what is going on in a child’s personal life, it’s usually pretty easy to figure out why they do the things they do. Good parents seek to address the inner problem and change the inner motivation in order to alter the outward expression. They know that forcing the child to suppress the outward expression won’t ultimately solve the inner problem, but cause it to fester, possibly for a lifetime.

Each person possesses both creative and destructive forces in equal measure. These complement each other. They can’t be judged by the common standards of good and evil, as they are all part of a whole. This is why, Chu says,  the ideal Thick Face, Black Heart practitioner does not try to live up to any public or private image of himself. These practitioners allow their outward appearance to be dominating or submissive as the situation calls for. They follow their inner convictions.

An example from Asia is the classic Chinese saying, “Pretend to be a Pig in Order to Eat the Tiger.” It references one method that was once used in tiger hunting: to dress in a  pig’s skin and wait in the woods. When the tiger comes close, looking for his lunch, the hunter shoots the tiger. Asian philosophy judges a man not on his strength and heroism in tiger killing, but on his ability to endure the humiliation of being a pig. Thus the inner conviction to kill a tiger is externally unknowable when one is dressed like a pig and shambling around, rooting in the dirt, but the hunter has his inner conviction and doesn’t care what other people think of him.

This is where the concept of “Thick Face,” or unshakeable self-confidence without regard to the opinions of others, comes in. Rather than attempting to be heroic—in war, in a corporate setting, in family life, or in sales—a warrior must be willing to do whatever is needed to overcome the opposition, even including yielding to the point of looking like a pig—in order to ultimately win.

Einstien said that a great person knows of his or her greatness long before anyone else does. If you do, don’t consider that to be arrogance. Also, don’t express it as arrogance. Simply know it. Keep that inner conviction, and let it drive you in your deeds.

Ethics Are Subjective

Friday, December 4th, 2009

ethicsAxioms like “turn the other cheek” make us feel good. If we believe in them, it seems as if we can sum up proper human conduct in three seconds or less, then move on to more pressing matters. But in reality, human conduct, and business conduct, is never cut and dried like that. There are times to turn the other cheek, and there are times not to. Here I’m going to use Chin-Ning Chu’s book, Thick Face, Black Heart, to help sort it all out. Something she mentions quite a bit in the book is that Chinese philosophy, largely due to the way the Chinese language works, is very different from western, or Christian, philosophy. Chinese characters mean different things in different situations, and that is exactly the way the philosophy is: nothing is set in stone. Every moment is physically, financially, emotionally, and ETHICALLY unique.

If you get slapped (physically or metaphorically), and you turn the other cheek, this means taking an attitude of submission to aggressive forces. There are times to do this, certainly. You may decide that it is smarter to lie in wait until you have the chance to get the person back in earnest. You may decide that presenting an attitude of submission will help you get what you want. You may deduce that further provoking the aggressor would be too dangerous. You may even feel that you deserved the slap! So if you turn the other cheek out of an inner conviction, then you are doing it for the right reasons. However, a lot of people, when faced with blatant aggression, “turn the other cheek,” or refuse to fight back, for the wrong reasons.

If you have to suppress an impulse to strike back because you have been taught that violence or aggression are wrong, then you have allowed your actions to be constrained by others. You are trying to please others, whether they be your parents, teachers, priests, or friends. It is up to you and only you to make the choice as to what behavior any particular situation calls for. If you refuse to think for yourself, in the moment, and instead rely on “what you’ve been taught” about behavior in life in general, you are simply perpetuating the role of victim for yourself. Then again, if you turn the other cheek because you are simply afraid to hit back, then you are a coward. You aren’t morally superior. Don’t confuse the two! It all comes down to Chu’s belief that hitting back does not necessarily make you a bad person. In punishing violent behavior, you may be acting as a peacemaker. “The truth,” she says, “is that most of the commonly accepted standards of behavior are arbitrary, and the arbitrators themselves are often flawed individuals who, under the guise of virtue, have perpetuated their own weakness and fear.”