This article starts with the paper "The Issue of Standpoint and the Main Idea of Qi Wu - The Neglected Zhuangzi's 'Because It Is'" by Professor Li Wei, discussing the issue of standpoint and analyzing the attitudes and judgments involved in communication. Using the reasoning ladder model, it seeks effective methods of communication to achieve consensus.
The Issue of Standpoint in "Qi Wu Lun"#
"Qi" is not the text language of "Qi Wu Lun," but an interpretive language (a title added by later generations). The main idea of "Qi Wu Lun" is to discuss the issue of standpoint and talk about "because it is." The paragraph that best expresses the issue of standpoint in the text is: "Things are not other than themselves, things are not other than what they are. From otherness, we cannot see it; from self-knowledge, we know it. Therefore, it is said: From otherness, it is also because of it. That is the theory of the birth of otherness. However, the birth of otherness is also the birth of self; the death of otherness is also the death of self; the possibility of otherness is also the possibility of self; because it is, because it is not; because it is not, because it is. Therefore, the sage does not rely on it to illuminate the world, but also because of it. It is also that, and that is also it. That is also one, this is also one. Is there really that? Is there really no that? That is unique and has no pair, called the pivot of the Way. When the pivot begins to revolve, it responds to the infinite. That is also infinite, and that is also infinite. Therefore, it is said: Nothing is better than clarity." Let's break it down sentence by sentence.
Things are not other than themselves, things are not other than what they are. From otherness, we cannot see it; from self-knowledge, we know it. Therefore, it is said: From otherness, it is also because of it. That is the theory of the birth of otherness.
What is "right and wrong"? The understanding of "right and wrong" in this sentence needs to be analyzed in conjunction with "Zhuangzi·Nanhua": "To follow one's own heart and learn from it, who alone is without a teacher? Why must there be someone who knows how to take the place and take it upon oneself? There are fools and those who have it. Before the heart is formed, there is right and wrong, which is today's adaptation and yesterday's arrival."
Here, Zhuangzi discusses "right and wrong," and the focus is not on a certain nature or connotation itself, but on the origin of "right and wrong," which is "the formed heart." As Hansen said, "the formed heart" is equivalent to the prejudice of hermeneutics, which is the standpoint that people already have before observing and speaking.
However, the birth of otherness is also the birth of self; the death of otherness is also the death of self; the possibility of otherness is also the possibility of self; because it is, because it is not; because it is not, because it is. Therefore, the sage does not rely on it to illuminate the world, but also because of it.
The issue of standpoint depends on our standpoint. Even though the sage does not have a specific personal standpoint, he still "illuminates the world" and has a standpoint. Therefore, everyone will be limited by their standpoint and cannot escape it.
That is also that, and that is also it. That is also one, this is also one. Is there really that? Is there really no that? That is unique and has no pair, called the pivot of the Way. When the pivot begins to revolve, it responds to the infinite. That is also infinite, and that is also infinite. Therefore, it is said: Nothing is better than clarity.
Both "that" and "this" are infinite, so "nothing is better than clarity" emphasizes the need to be open-minded and not to insist on viewing things from only one perspective.
Zhuangzi's purpose in proposing "because it is" is to reflect on the universal situation of "people having a standpoint," reveal the root of controversy, and propose a solution. The essence is to resolve the differences in the interpretation of things from the perspective of the Dao, which is the most ideal "because it is" that follows the "Dao."
Attitudes and Judgments: What Should We Discuss?#
Evaluation is a description of the relationship between the object and the subject, a state of the object from the perspective of the subject, and a value judgment. Specifically, the evaluative language used in our daily communication can be divided into attitudes and judgments. Among them, attitudes are pure subjective emotional expressions, while judgments are more objective value evaluations.
In communication, we need to be careful not to confuse attitudes and judgments. Because judgments can be discussed, but attitudes do not need to be discussed and cannot be discussed. The purpose of discussion is to reach consensus and seek common ground while reserving differences. Therefore, attitudes should not be mixed in, as it can lead to conflicting opinions.
So, what disputes can be resolved through discussion?
We can divide the issues discussed into areas of consensus and areas of no consensus. For areas of consensus, there will be no disputes, and the key is to focus on areas of no consensus.
For areas of no consensus, we can divide them into objectively verifiable and subjectively unverifiable. The latter tends to be attitude evaluations, and we should exclude them from the discussion and focus on objectively verifiable content.
In addition, many people speak like this in life:
- "This movie is terrible. I watched it for half an hour and still don't know what the director wants to convey."
- "Don't read this book. It's terrible. I gave up reading it before I finished half of it. It's just not interesting."
- "The theme of this escape room is not good. Don't go. I played it before, and the experience was very poor."
These statements are incorrect because they express the personal experience or subjective feelings of the speaker. Attitudes should be expressed directly, rather than used as judgments. We can say "I like this movie" or "I dislike this book" instead of saying "This movie is good" or "This book is not good."
Furthermore, our universal judgments about everything will be limited by our standpoint. As discussed in "Zhuangzi·Qiushui": "Because it is big, everything is big. Because it is small, everything is small. Because it has it, everything has it. Because it doesn't have it, everything doesn't have it. Because it is so, everything is so. Because it is not so, everything is not so." "Because of X, a judgment of X is made about everything."
However, we will always be limited by our standpoint. Does that mean we cannot make judgments? Not necessarily. It means that when making judgments, we should strive for a higher standpoint, and the standard of judgment should be as universal as possible. For example, a movie can be evaluated from the perspectives of cinematography, character development, and plot tension. But if we simply say, "Because it is good-looking, it is a good movie," it may not be appropriate.
Therefore, the content we should discuss is the main arguments of both sides in the judgment. In the discussion, attitudes should not be mixed in. Only through such discussions can effective communication be achieved and consensus be reached.
The Ladder of Reasoning: The Limitations of Cognition#
Let's go back and look at the limitations of cognition in conjunction with the issue of standpoint.
In Mr. L's course, he mentioned a ladder of reasoning model, as shown in the figure below,
We cannot know the whole picture of the "real world," just as phenomenology focuses on phenomena. Because we cannot grasp the "essence" of things, our only rational object is phenomena, which can be studied. We can only "observe" the phenomena we can observe, and our brains selectively accept these observed phenomena. We then try to "interpret" the received phenomena, make "assumptions" about the interpretation (the framework of the Toulmin argument), and draw "conclusions" based on the interpretation and assumptions. Finally, based on our "beliefs" (or standpoint), we make decisions and take "actions."
We can also look at this model in conjunction with "Qi Wu Lun."
Just as "Qi Wu Lun" says, "From otherness, we cannot see it; from self-knowledge, we know it." We can only grasp things from a standpoint.
But "Therefore, there is division, and there is no division; there is debate, and there is no debate. Why is this? The sage embraces it, and ordinary people debate it to show each other. Therefore, it is said: Debate also has unseen things." In other words, if we insist on our standpoint, it will lead to "division" and a closed standpoint, which will result in self-restriction and self-constraint.
Therefore, we need to find our standpoint and break through it so that we can view problems from a higher dimension, more perspectives, and a more objective and impartial standpoint.
Just as I wrote in a previous article, "Journey of Light: Zen," what we can grasp is only the characteristics of individuals. In all artistic expressions, what we grasp is only the characteristics of individual perspectives. The formation of a concept in our minds is the result of the fusion of countless perspectives. And the higher our standpoint, the broader our historical and cultural perspectives, and the more we can evaluate the meaning of everything within the scope of our vision, from large to small, from far to near.
Based on the ladder of reasoning model, we may encounter two problems in communication:
- When discussing and communicating, standing at the top of the ladder and launching attacks on others with conclusions. This will only lead to each side speaking for themselves, repeating and emphasizing their own viewpoints, which is not conducive to resolving disputes and reaching consensus.
- Being overly confident in one's own conclusions. Therefore, neglecting the steps at the bottom of the ladder and immersing and limiting oneself in one's own standpoint, unable to listen to others' opinions or see evidence that is unfavorable to oneself.
So, how can we overcome our standpoint, achieve effective communication, and reach consensus?
Effective Communication: Abandon Standpoints, Seek Consensus#
First and foremost, it must be clear that the ultimate goal of communication and discussion is never to distinguish between winning and losing but to get closer to the truth. The core of all discussions must revolve around consensus, and the purpose of discussion is to achieve consensus. We may not be able to fully understand the truth, so the key is to seek consensus between the two sides and expand our perspectives to gain new insights, enabling us to view problems from a higher dimension and understand their essence as much as possible.
Consensus: It is not just "we all know," but "we all know that the other party knows." The former is common knowledge, while the latter is consensus. For more details, you can refer to the expanded reading of "The Iceberg of Cognition."
Based on the article "The Iceberg of Cognition," here is a summary of several suggestions that can help us overcome our standpoint, seek consensus, and achieve effective communication:
- Clearly define the concepts being discussed before starting the communication to avoid bias or being on different wavelengths. Rephrasing the other person's words can also confirm whether both parties have a consistent understanding.
- Clearly define the scope of effective communication. As mentioned earlier, the scope of effective communication is the objectively verifiable area of no consensus. For areas of consensus, there will be no disputes. The key is to focus on areas of no consensus.
- Use descriptive judgments rather than attitude evaluations in communication. We cannot change others' attitudes in a short discussion, so it is important to understand others' attitudes and recognize that they may have different reasoning ladders, which may lead to different conclusions. Therefore, expressing attitude evaluations in discussions is meaningless.
- Start from our own standpoint and be aware that we may make mistakes. Question each step of our reasoning ladder and clarify our thoughts. Also, constantly question whether there are other possibilities.
- Start from the other person's standpoint, help them organize their thoughts, and examine our own shortcomings. Help the other person step back from the final action and clarify their thinking process, identify any flaws in their reasoning process, and question the source and reliability of their arguments. In addition, we need to refer to the other person's thought process and examine our own thinking for any shortcomings.
Lastly, always remind ourselves to have a heart of tolerance and humility in communication.
Further reading: