virtues – Xenofact.com

Part of my larger meditative/spiritual practice is to ensure my development and explorations are on “all levels.” There’s breathing, there’s mysticism, and sometimes there’s just having a healthy meal. At one point in earlier 2026 I was thinking about how I aligned with people since social interactions are so important to us. I mean yes I worked to play a role in society, help people, etc., but I wanted a way to evaluate it.

I wanted a touchstone to provide a quick way to evaluate my behaviors and choices. A kind of exercise/health routine for the social soul as it were. Fortunately the choice was obvious.

I picked the Five Virtues from various Chinese practices. Since I had heard of them due to my interest in Taoism, I had some vague familiarity. Since they were part of the larger idea of the Five Elements that pervaded a great deal of Chinese thoughts, I had references. Thus each day I’d reflect on Truthfulness, Righteousness, Wisdom, Benevolence, and Order. And, yes I’ve seen different translations and takes on them, so I took a go at finding the best take I could.

(I should note these are also part of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Though I think TCM as a whole has virtues, many a cure or treatment has not been scientifically validated and some are disproven or questionable.)

What I did was take a look at myself, go “I need a quick checklist for my social roles,” grabbed something I was vaguely familiar with, and ran with it. That was it.

Now that may seem a little sudden, perhaps even shallow to just sort of go “gonna use that method of ethical thought” and take off with it. I mean these are deep social principles, these are Virtues with historical significance and baggage. Can I take thousands of years of thought and just go for it?

Actually, yes I can.

The key thing here is that I had to start somewhere. I wanted to find a way to look at my ethics and social interactions. I didn’t want to kick the tires on a bunch of methods, I wanted to start. The point in fact was not to find the best (if that is possible). The point was to get going so I start thinking and work things out over time.

And thus I took something that I knew I could start with and had sources on. In time I learned more, read arguments, found some interesting opinions, and looked at many a conflicting set of thoughts. I also found plenty of shallow or entry-level takes. But also I got thinking and thinking about myself and making changes in my life.

I looked at other works on ethics and compared them. I thought about the arguments among Taoists and Confucians over if Truthfulness was core or Benevolence was (guess who I sided with). Throughout it all I kept asking about myself, my behavior, my principles – and yes, I got up to some wild and weird comparisons because I’m me.

Did it “work?” Well, yes in that I feel I have a way to think about myself and what I do. Will this be the way I evaluate myself for the rest of my life? I have no idea, but I got going and I’m pretty sure I’m a better person.

That’s something to remember in all our spiritual and ethical and mystical practices – you have to get going. Maybe it’s slow or it’s fast. Maybe there’s some study or you come out hot out of the gate. But you have to actually get to doing it so you can learn and do and be better.

You might even find out you’re wrong about a choice. I might decide there’s a better way to map my ethics than picking up what I had lying around. But I got moving and that’s what matters in our practices to be more of who we are and can be.

–Xenofact

Win One For Confucians

Last column I talked about how Taoists irritated with detail-obsessed Confucians reminded me of how people got annoyed with conspiracy theorists. It was a strange revelation, and one I’ll probably analyze for awhile to understand underlying human behavior. But let’s talk about something I learned from my (limited) reading of Confucian thought.

First, I want to be open about my opinions – and limits on my knowledge – of Confucianism. I took an interest in it due to A) Taoists arguing with them and B) an interest Chinese history, usually communications. I’ve read a few texts, a few historical documents, and a larger amount of Taoist mockery or fellow-feeling depending on when said texts were written. I’m no expert.

I would sum it up as “anal-retentive humanism about cultivating morality.” Confucius himself seems to have been a thoughtful, witty, pleasant, but at times anxious or neurotic person who didn’t seem to really intend to found a religion. In practice it has often served power and patriarchal culture, but through it run elements of counter-culturalism and principle. My limited experience have been more “WTF” than I expected.

But in my limited readings, a story stood out – one that, years later, taught me a lesson. So let’s give the Confucians a win.

In my readings there are often stories about the importance of mourning one’s parents when they pass. It’s important to recognize their sacrifice, the duration of mourning, and so on. There’s enough dead parents in a casual reading Confucian literature to make you worry you stepped into a Disney film. Yes I get filial piety and all that, but still.

Once or twice I’d encounter a story of an king who’s father (who had stepped down) passed away. This meant big public ceremonies and so on because, hey, dead king. What stood out to me is people being impressed at how sad the living king was, how he wept and mourned so aggressively. At first I thought the stories were annoying, performative – I mean, you know, let’s not make a show of it, be honest.

Years later, as I contemplated politics in America in the 2020s I thought about all the transgressive politicians. The ones that were basically online Influencers, the ones acting like they were Shock Jocks. The ones who were supposedly both the best of us and hideous assholes and in no way role models.

They were being performatively against what we supposedly valued.

. . . and suddenly I got the king and his Big Mourning.

I don’t want leaders who violate our principles, I want them to embody them. I want the continuity and stability of society, not its fracturing. Wanting leaders that violate everything you say you care about means you’re both an asshole and destructive – and stupid. Even if a leader is, dare I say it, a bit performative, it’s saying there’s an agreement on what matters, even if things might get a tad fuzzy around things in the “best face forward” way.

Moral performances of certain kinds – what people might call “virtue signaling” – are ways of communicating and reinforcing values. They are reflections of the agreement that hold society together. It may be a janky agreement, it may have edge cases that aren’t on the edge, but unless a society is totally screwed, it matters.

Then I got it. These kings were virtue signaling, but about stuff important to the community, the love of parents, the proper activities. King and peasant were bonded together in “when we lose our parents, we respect those that created us.” A weeping king was, at that moment no different than a farmer who lost his mother and father.

So know what? Chalk one up for the early Confucian writers. Some moral and ethical continuity, via ritual, is important. Yeah it might not be 100% true or honest all the time, but if it’s enough for society to grow and function, then it’s important. It might not seem like a ritual, but there is a time to say “we are on the same side” and act on it.

Because we’ve damn well seen what happens when destroying everything is lauded, and violating what actually works is worshiped.

-Xenofact