Words&Dirt

“First, in our interactions, we must not look askance at each other (ni).  We must get beyond viewing each other obliquely and with distrust.  In the mutual shaping that occurs through both patterns of deference and the modeling that such patterns entail, we require the utmost focus and concentration and the fullest application of all of our resources: our memory and our intelligence as well as our imagination.  In the human world, the conduct of one person serves as a model that shapes the conduct of others, where that process of being shaped eventuates in the consummate persons who will in their turn shape others.  In all of this, the means and the ends are the same.  We act consummately in order to act consummately.

There is a further point with regard to deference that can be inferred from this Zhongyong text.  In this passage and in the Analects too, shu, ‘putting oneself in the other’s place,’ is given an alternative characterization: Shu is defined negatively as ‘do not impose on others what you yourself do not want.’  This ‘negative’ version of the Golden Rule is modest; it does not presuppose that one has access to some objective and universal standard that would serve as warrant for ‘doings unto others as you would have them do unto you.’  Just as the hewing of the axe handle uses a model rather than a template, so the shaping of one person in relation to another is directed at an accommodating harmony rather than an imposed uniformity.  Rather than mere replication, an important degree of artistry is needed.  Indeed, what is required in ‘putting oneself in the other’s place’ is the awareness that these are different places.  Stated conversely in the absence of some assumed universal standard, to begin from the presumption that one already knows what is most appropriate for someone else is disrespectful and condescending.  Instead, one needs to be open and provisional, and to assume that deliberation on how to best grow a relationship can only be pursued through a careful consideration of the needs of this specific person and the possibilities of these specific circumstances.  Even so, in our search for a way to optimize the possibilities in this relationship, to refrain from doing to someone else what we do not want done to us would at the very least be a good place to start.  Beyond this rather obvious beginning, however, there is a world of contingencies that require thoughtful and imaginative exploration.”

––Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary, by Roger T. Ames, pg. 198-9

“Where shall I go at sunset?  Guided by shells and light from the jets, my steps lead me to B’s house.  It may appear to those who don’t know him that B is running the whole war––battle, negotiations, and information services.  Spry, youthful, and a troublemaker, he found in this war his long-lost game.  One hand on the phone, giving out statements about what he knows and doesn’t know, and the other writing out orders, instructions, or advice.  He handles twenty appointments an hour without getting tired.  A beehive of a man whom fate has singled out for humming.  A friend who sets no terms for friendship.  Amusing, intelligent, and giving.

In his house there’s an Idol that doesn’t speak.  An Idol cheered and worshiped.  The quieter he becomes, the more the wisdom of his silence stirs up a storm of applause.  And in the house there’s friend whose name is A, who can imagine what the world will be like a century and a half from now. His thoughts, which run along the lines of formal logic, arouse a cinematic excitement.  He speaks of states large and small as he does of the streets of Beirut, without hesitation or having to be asked.  And if his expectations turn out to be true, this Eastern region will in a short while be under siege by two types of priests of darkness.  I agree with his forecast, deeming it the final stage of the ongoing disintegration and one of the forms of the coming catastrophe.  But we differ endlessly about his claim that such an outcome is all that can save us, because one darkness can triumph over another and leave the dawn for us.  Regardless of the extent to which the slogans of modern politics are severed from principle and its discourse emptied of content, I don’t believe––I don’t want to believe––that the history of this East will either mechanically repeat itself or bring about anything new.  I don’t expect Arab renewal to come except from the Arabs themselves.  And I don’t see that the model set up to tempt those who have despaired of this age with a return to faith has anything to offer short of going back to a struggle over questions no longer our questions.”

––Memory for Forgetfulness, by Mahmoud Darwish, pg. 155-6