我们又能怎么办呢?

作者:琴春(单春晴)

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者


尚书之中,如果王要做一件事,会列出一个个理由,去做对比,去说原因。民众也会根据自己的理智做出选择,既有盘庚的三言的劝说,也有“是日何时丧,予与汝皆亡”的否决。民众对自己的生活是有发言权的,对国家的政策是可以拒绝的,对自己的选择是要负责的,这是文明的定义:每个人去做出选择,然后承担责任。

秦之后,便不再有什么统治阶级和民众的对话,更没有什么实行政策要说明理由、讲求原因。民众在法家的压制下,不再能够认识到一切权力的来源在于他们自己的选择,而是把肉食者的事情交给肉食者去做,一切的历史从此变成了帝王将相的历史。

归根到底,这是一种懒惰。通过让渡权力,来过好“自己的小日子”。从秦汉到2022,人民就是没有意识的、卑躬屈膝的集体。过得不好,不去把自己组织起来,强迫统治阶级和自己对话,而是期待一个海瑞一般的青天大老爷。人民不再自己承担责任,不再进行自发的暴动,从5.4到6.4,说到底,是中央的一派组织“群众”去打压另一派的工具。要是没有人组织呢?那就敲盆,求青天大老爷出现。

买彩票买得家破人亡,怎么办?去上访,敲盆求青天大老爷。买理财买到原油宝,一调查,几百个人里面,没有一个人看过产品说明。赔钱了,怎么办?去上访,敲盆求青天大老爷。被电信诈骗,被传销洗脑,醒来发现自己因为自己的智障活不下去了,怎么办?去上访,敲盆求青天大老爷。

好像什么事情,有一个海瑞,就可以解决问题了。问他们为什么不自己决定政策,然后为此负责,他们说“都是上面定的,我们又有什么办法呢?”有什么办法?“上面”的权力是谁给的?是中央给的,还是暴力机关给的?不就是你们自己的驯服给的?还有什么办法?

一边嘲笑甘地非暴力不合作,说他是软蛋,一边自己早上六点被人叫起来老老实实下去排队测核酸,饿死病死,都去敲一敲盆,求一求青天大老爷。中央能解决一切事情吗?譬如期房,本来是每个购买者都可以对监管账户进行监督、对工程进行质询的;没事发生的时候,一次这样的质询都没有;一问,说是相信政府,相信国家。你这购房协议是和当地政府签的?还是中央在你的购房协议上盖了党徽国徽章?这协议是和银行、和房地产企业签的,不是和国家签的。

国家的作用,是保证没事发生的时候,每个人都能履行协议内自己的权力。要上访,应该在一切工程正常的情况下,对你的监管要求不答复的企业,去上访;问为什么不这么做,说“这不是没事找事么”,没事吗?出了问题之后也没事吗?什么事情都觉得这是青天大老爷不够海瑞,求另一个青天大老爷来主持公道,否则就拉横幅唱歌。这是在绣花,还是在请客吃饭呢?共和国七十年,一代人的寿命,到了现在,遇到问题,还想着青天大老爷?

柏拉图的理想国,可以说现在是实现了。每个人都不愿意拥有权力承担责任,都只是“做好自己做的事”。对于自己想要的东西,幻想着只要努力,然后有个青天大老爷来公平地给努力盖章确认。要是老爷不公平,“我们又能怎么办呢?”

怎么办,写在列宁全集里,写在毛泽东选集里。但似乎,列宁的时代,“人民”是列宁拿来夺权的工具;毛泽东的时代,“人民”是毛泽东“与人斗,其乐无穷”的乐子。这大致不是民族性,而是自战国以来,或者说自柏拉图以来,统治阶级追求“顺民”的巨大成功。鲁迅哀其不幸,怒其不争,但终究还是战胜不了统治阶级。骆驼祥子永远都是骆驼祥子。

我们又能怎么办呢?

我们又能怎么办呢!

我们,又能怎么办!肉食者鄙,我们,又能怎么办!我们不想这么办,没有人想这么办,“武力是无能者最后的手段”,但我们,又能怎么办!

人性

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者。

“在人性和党性之间,我选择人性”,这种话我是不会说的。党性(书面上)根本不反人性,反人性的是一些拿着党性当令箭的人。把党换成“大清的国运”,换成“中华民族的存亡”,换成“必要的代价”,换成“为了更美好的未来”:都是一样的。

为了中华民族不灭亡就可以反人性?
为了让未来更美好就可以反人性?
为了大清的黄龙旗就可以反人性?
为了更换制度自己上去过好日子就能反人性?
为了所谓的宗教自由就可以反人性?
为了大部分人利益就可以反人性?
为了党的原则就可以反人性?

人性是高于自由民主,高于意识形态,高于民族存亡的。自由民主、意识形态、民族存亡是为人性服务的。怎么能主次颠倒,买椟还珠?

无论是共产主义式的代表大会民主,还是两院制的地区/人口代表的民主,哪一个的建立基础不是为了人的人性?


共产国际里面的意识形态争论,里面最大的原则从来不是“打江山、保江山、坐江山”,而是“我的意识形态能让更多的人自由地创造价值、你的意识形态过于僵化无法适应人民精神文化水平 的迅速发展、资本主义的意识形态把人禁锢在金钱中没了人性”。
武装夺取政权一直是手段,它永远不应该、不可以、也绝不会成为目的。

华国锋做的最大的事情,不是什么四人帮,四人帮总有人去粉碎。他把资料封存了,把周恩来、毛泽东的批示封存了,违背了周恩来、毛泽东的遗愿保下了资料,这才是他做的意义最大的事情。

现在我们能看到周恩来是怎么一步步把中国带入经济自杀,饿死几千万人,只是为了打击毛泽东的权力,毛泽东又是怎么反击,最后是怎么样才会发展成那样:我们有经验教训。

现在有现在的周恩来,现在有现在的毛泽东,现在的周恩来毛泽东都从头到尾读过那些文献:字可以念别字,宽衣就宽衣,对方的手段可不能判断错。但难道应该去学习周恩来毛泽东?
周恩来天天吃穿要最顶级的、宣传要自己是最朴素的:这个是全中国腐败的源头。
毛泽东天天要人向他个人效忠,“即使我退掉所有职务,退党,中国也必须跟我走”:这个是全中国没有法治,独断专行的源头。
他们两个的对立,导致50年代本可以立刻起飞的中国、一个可以吸引钱学森,吸引无数国际华人奔赴建设的中国,变成了饿死人的中国,变成了斗死人的中国。

他们曾经都是真的有理想的人,都是真正可以为理想牺牲、可以“引刀成一快,不负少年头”的人物。后面的改变,是因为自己被自己的利益集团逼迫,是因为自己被自己的“争猴王”性所迷惑,还是因为自己被自己的恐惧所束缚造成的?这似乎是一种必然性,不是道德的问题。这是最令我恐慌的。

历史会不断重复自身,我们从历史中学到的教训就是,我们无法从历史中学到教训。历史洪流浩浩汤汤,顺之则昌,逆之则亡。道德好不好,文化高不高,都没关系,只有顺着潮流才能存活、发达。这造就了周恩来和毛泽东,也造就了胡锦涛/温家宝和习近平。

但我不准备管自己有没有顺历史潮流。我不会为了顺应潮流而买椟还珠。我不知道我的自杀式的做法能不能避免那时候周恩来和毛泽东一样的结局,但我拒绝顺从现在顶层的历史潮流。

“在人性和任何东西之间,我选择人性”

Tell me why

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者

有人会为了莫名其妙的理由,去破坏别人的生活,美其名曰爱国。
有人会为了莫名其妙的憎恨,去编造智障的谎言,信奉毫无理由的宗教,美其名曰抗争、民主、独立思考。
有人会为了莫名其妙的心理,去觉得自己有权力控制他人,有权力让别人“服从”,美其名曰团结、秩序。

有时候很难说服自己做很多事情的意义。我很难相信这种东西也能被称为人。

人,是不会因为别人的痛苦而快乐的,这些东西,会因为别的地区死了多少人,有多少人遭受着一些疾病后遗症的折磨,而沾沾自喜。会为了一个纯粹面子上的、所谓的大统一的理由,去希望用核弹炸死其他人。

我真的很难想象为什么会有人如此的铁石心肠,为什么会有人完全不能体会到他人的痛苦,为什么会有人以“比别人好”而快乐。

自己比别人过得好,那么就说明别人比自己过得差,不应该去帮助对方吗?不应该去努力让对方也过得好吗?这有什么好高兴的?我很愤怒。

不知道是对这些畜牲愤怒,还是对自己居然在努力让这些畜牲有一个美好的明天,而对自己愤怒:这些畜牲的主流思想,是我低人一等,是变态,应该死。

愤怒过后,可能仍然没办法看着别人受苦,大概还是会继续,继续宁可丢掉自己的一切,也要让别人好过一些。我能体会到它们的痛苦,即使它们体会不到我的……

但这是什么世界,这些是什么事情,为什么会是这样……

1453

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者

罗马共和国的帝国时期,无论是建立,还是灭亡,都上感天象。凯撒被刺杀后,人类有史以来最明亮的彗星连续七天出现,罗马的史书和汉书都记载了这一天象,此后,罗马共和国进入帝国时期。在新罗马城被攻破的七天前,发生月食,七天后新罗马被攻破,罗马共和国灭亡。或许是偶然,或许是必然。直到今天,穆斯林社会仍然纪念着这个事件,土耳其1951,2012年拍摄的两部主旋律电影《买买提上城记》就是典型的例子。

按可以交叉印证的史料记载,新罗马被攻破的主要原因可以归结为以下三点

  1. 乌尔班大炮起到了心理威慑作用。虽然无法攻破城墙,只能打下一些瓦砾;但它的持续的一个月,每隔数小时发射一次的巨响,告诉了守军,买买提这次将用倾国之力来攻击城市:乌尔班大炮造价昂贵,并且会炸膛,但买买提仍然从后方源源不断地运输炮管和炮弹来攻击城市;经后人整理计算,光是乌尔班大炮一项,产生的支出,就高达30万到100万威尼斯金币,是奥斯曼帝国数年的岁入,也是当时罗马几十年的岁入。
  2. 金角湾的陆路无法防守,导致了奥斯曼海军通过陆路进入金角湾。这是有史以来从未出现过的战术,虽然奥斯曼海军进入金角湾之后,被罗马共和国的海军关门打狗,损失惨重;罗马共和国的海军直到破城时,都在海上压制着奥斯曼帝国海军。这和乌尔班大炮一样,是极高支出并且没有实质成果的作战方式,只是造成了相当的恐慌;罗马共和国完全指望海路运输的补给和人力来长期作战,金角湾被封锁会让补给和人力无法进入。事实上,封锁几乎毫无效果,威尼斯的小舰队在没有损失一船一人的情况下,毫发无损地通过金角湾进入港口,带来了根本没有海路运输的补给和人力的消息。如果奥斯曼帝国真的能够封锁海湾,可能罗马的崩溃还会晚许多。
  3. 守城部队的极度缺乏,导致城墙无人防守。买买提可以发动对每一寸城墙的人海攻击,但守军完全做不到防御每一寸城墙。买买提在确定大炮无效后,还尝试了挖地道来攻入城市,但罗马在极度缺乏人力的情况下,摧毁了所有地道。买买提的金角湾舰队出现后,守军还需要分散一部分人力去运作舰队。极其有限的守军,既要在大炮的恐惧下,每天面对潮水般总攻的部队,又要参与地道的反攻,还要分出一定的人力来运作海军。

即使如此,1453年仍然是一个意外。买买提的最后总攻,包括同时发射的十几门大炮,全部的军力和海军,靠着尸体堆平了壕沟,在城墙下同时进行地道挖掘和云梯攀登,仍然没有攻破城市;直到发现一个被瓦砾遮盖的小门没有守卫,甚至没有关闭:这在双方的记载中都认为是一个意外。买买提几乎是完全靠这个小门上的城。

人类历史从此转向,罗马的希腊语著作大量散失于各地,导致了文艺复兴;拜占庭城作为最重要的欧亚连接的端点,使得欧洲几乎完全失去和东亚的商贸,导致了大航海时代。如果那一扇门关闭了,人类的历史还会继续,但绝无可能出现文艺复兴,毕竟没书;绝无可能出现大航海时代,途径拜占庭辐射控制的区域的商队成本比大航海时代的船只成本低得多。

实际上,以君士坦丁十一世的军事天赋(从其年轻时指挥的大量“奇迹般”、“神助的”战役可以看出,职业化的罗马军团,在他的指挥下可以),如果对买买提上城的消息有所准备,罗马不会在这一天灭亡。当时的财富集中有两种方式,第一是政府的税收,这基本上是不存在的,虽然养活一批官僚没有问题,但不可能有任何多余的财富征召军队;第二是东正教的圣座,在东正教的影响范围中,一直有大量的、不属于罗马政治版图下的信徒朝圣进贡。在1450年,罗马共和国圣座如果开始组建宗教卫队,并且像东正教辐射的地区普遍进行号召,而不是在要不要和西方教会合并的问题上内斗,完全可以在1453年之前组建一两个职业罗马军团的兵力;这仍然和买买提的兵力,或者和罗马共和国历史上拥有的兵力,都相差巨大,但完全可以保证守城时好歹可以轮班休息。

人类历史就是一连串的意外,每一个意外都可能影响几千万,几十亿人的存亡……

很有趣,很残忍。

活着

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者

活着本身,就是一件诗意的事情吧,在漫无边际的世界上,寻找一两点自己所喜爱的价值,然后为之绽放一切。

怎么选择,为什么选择,已经不需要去想了。人是自己塑造的吧:无论原生家庭怎么样,无论生长经历怎么样,人是自己塑造的吧。没有谁有办法改变另一个人的灵魂,没有任何东西可以改变。突然有了一种自由的感觉。

晴空下的草地,孤身一人,是最大的空虚,也是最大的喜乐。人是需要依赖人存在的吗?别人就是一切吗?因为别人的关注而关注,因为别人的忽视而忽视。真正还算是活着吗?如果每个人的思想是由社交网络平均塑造的,是一组平均值,那何必存在呢?

不过,那样的人更加合群吧。上心理学引论的时候,老师说人天生就会排斥不平均的人,因为这样的生物存在突破了他们的舒适区。平均的体型是最美的,平均的脸型是最好看的。

不知道,人本身会不会倾向于使自己的灵魂变得平均。每个人在十几岁的时候都很不一样,像是独立的一个世界。而到了四十岁,却只要用一个词,就能说完一个人的灵魂。可以有专业领域,有兴趣爱好,有胖瘦高矮。但灵魂上,有什么区别呢?可以很清楚地知道一个人会喜欢什么,害怕什么。那一代人灵魂生而相等吗?还是时间会把灵魂训练成几种单调的类型呢?

在赞赏平均,期望平均的世界上,这样的人会过得更好吧。成就,荣誉,地位,都是给那些最为平均,最按社会要求生活的人的。

相对于平均而炫目的幸福,我选择平凡而孤独地苟活。像自己一样地活着,就很好了。

bilibili 2017拜年祭 再一次 猜测解析

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号 330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者

众所周知,有三个表面结局

  • 男死女活
  • 女死男活
  • 男女都活

很显然地,一切事物都与食物有关,所以这三个结局也被称为北京烤鸭结局,巫山烤鱼结局和东坡肉结局。根据设定,这三个结局是在平行世界循环/同时发生的,场景都在同一个古堡中。

在表面结局后,由于重返档案室,形成时间循环。故而表面结局并不是最终结局。由于是时间循环,最终结局其实在剧情发展中已经交代了,它们是

  • 男女主均死无人逃出
  • 女主死去后男主后单独逃出

在剧情过程中,有大量暗示说明了这些内容,比如

  • 城堡里只有女主的骸骨
  • 男主在本子中写满了“我就是魔鬼”
  • 骸骨越靠近档案室越多

现在根据之前的三个表面结局,论述一下未来(在叙述中是过去)的发展。

对于男死女活的烤鸭结局,女主可能没有等到男主,由于比较感性,刚刚被男主搭救,感情澎湃,在走廊里徘徊等待后死去。入口处各种坐姿的骸骨和走廊里的骸骨说明了这一点。一开始女主不开车和在车坏了以后的表现可以看出她不太会修车,故而这也有可能是她不出去的原因之一。或者,女主可能等到男主,则情节进入男女双活表面结局。

对于男活女死表面结局,比较简单。男主可以选择在城堡里等待,在等待许久无法等到女主后,自称非常理智的男主会走出城堡,拿他拿到的修车工具修好车开回去,门口的烟蒂之类的都暗示了这一点。如果等到女主,进入再次随机进入三个表面结局中的一个结局。

对于男女双活表面结局,很显然城堡里没有足够的食物(否则也就没有女主的骸骨了),所以白首双星是不可能的。由于城堡中没有男性骸骨,但有大量同一个人的女性骸骨,说明女主以某一种原因死了。女主感情影响理智让男主活下去存在可能,当然,考虑到本子里写满了“我就是魔鬼”,男主学习先导的优秀传统把女主杀死后逃出也不是没有可能,骸骨的分布和形态也说明了这一点,对于在走廊和入口附近的骸骨,其形态是自然死亡的背靠墙壁的坐姿,而对于在深处的骸骨,其形态有头下脚上的,有倒歪的,斜躺在楼梯上的,很少有坐姿和卧姿的,这些骸骨不太可能是正常死亡的。在男女双活的结局中女主会死也不只有骸骨的性别、形态和本子几处证据。在一个情景中,男女主在墙边讨论眼睛的问题,根据两个单活的表面结局,此时眼睛在哪一方谁就会在下一个死去。在双活结局中,这个场景并不是没有眼睛,而是眼睛在女主一方。所以,对于男女双活结局,男主会杀死女方或女方自杀。

故而,最终的结局是男女都死或者男活女死。所以,这个剧情说明了一个道理,男女分手了以后又不复合,还腻腻歪歪的去两人探险,即使不被FFF团当作假分手烧死,最终还是没有好结果的。

虽然是试验新的模式,但大过年的放FFF团的恐怖片真的好吗…

清朝的贰臣与舆论

作者:单春晴

我,单春晴( 身份证号330105199412120020 )授权任何人转载部分或全部的内容,并授权转载时对内容进行任意修改。转载时可自由选择是否注明出处和作者,但不可标注除单春晴以外的任何作者

任何一个时代,一旦有改朝换代,就有一批前朝遗民和两朝贰臣。上至商周,下至民末,无不如此。而在任何一个时代,对于这些贰臣的舆论,总有一个逐步转变的过程。商周以来到唐宋时期,留存资料较少,现存资料很难有效地反映当时的整体社会思想舆论变化;而民末一事,很多事物至今都不能算是盖棺论定,所以也很难做一个客观有价值的评判。而在明末清初,社会档案留存已经足够丰富,其变革距今也足够久远。可以说是研究贰臣在舆论上的地位这个问题的最佳时代。

贰臣的形成,是改朝换代的历史必然。没有任何一次改朝换代不存在贰臣;而贰臣的产生原因,历朝历代基本一样,不外乎是顺应天下潮流,维护自身利益而已。从商代微子的“肉袒面缚,左牵羊,右把茅,膝行而前以告”,到明末士人着囚服在午门外迎降,从形式到实质,基本都可以说是换汤不换药,可谓是“年年岁岁臣相似”。而对贰臣的舆论,则会根据朝代的不同而有很大的差异。有的朝代会一直维持贰臣的仁人地位,典型的就如刚提到的微子;而大多数朝代,对贰臣的舆论会根据政治需要而有多个不同的阶段,有的以不提告终,有的则编贰臣传加以贬斥,可谓是“岁岁年年论不同”。从征伐时的顺天命,到建国的不提,再到之后的重现审视以至于贬斥。这个过程,基本上是和当前政府的政治需要紧密相关的。而其中最典型、过程最完整的一个朝代,便是清朝。

在讨论清朝之前,先以第一人称视角看看一个拥有无限舆论控制力的虚拟朝代,贾朝,在建立时需要经过一个什么样的过程。首先,贾朝的创立者还在逐鹿中原之时,对手的臣子投降,必然的选择是倒履相迎,同时加以提防。这个时期,投靠者多多益善。故而,贾朝的统治者会希望这个时期对贰臣的社会舆论是宽松的,以“凤鸟择枝而息,良臣择主而事”为主的,此时也是贰臣言论最为自由的时候。过了十几年,贾朝的开国皇帝把天下打下来了。在此时,要做的首要任务是防备前朝遗臣反扑和割据势力造反。而那些贰臣,则是防备这两者的最佳选择。贰臣之所以能成为贰臣,要么有才,要么有兵,要么有名。没有才,没有兵,没有名,就算投靠,贾朝也不会重用。在这个时期,有才的贰臣为贾朝建立文治武功,加强贾朝的政权根基,动不得。有兵的贰臣随时可能黄袍加身,必须好吃好喝供着。有名的贰臣是天然的劝降官,即使他不愿为贾朝和前朝之间提供沟通的纽带,其归顺本身就是一个足够有用的符号,只要他不乱讲话,就要好好对待。所以,这段时期的宣传应该要宣传忠君,但也要宣扬贰臣。而将这两者融合,就叫“顺天命”,此时如果还有不太可能敌对的敌对国、稍有可能造反的敌对组织存在,很有可能还会做一些思想上的统一和镇压,如秦朝的焚书坑儒、清朝的文字狱就是思想上的镇压的极端例子。接下来,贰臣老的老,退的退。而贾朝也已经巩固。此时,让朝廷能够有效地为控制思想,稳定社会的传统儒家文化就会开始逐步成为社会主流。无论贾朝的创立者是遵循法家,兵家还是黄老,儒家文化忠君、维护现有秩序的吸引力都无法抗拒。此时,对于贰臣的评判,要么不提,而那些提起来的,也不需要过于客气。

故而,一个拥有无限舆论控制力的朝代,会控制社会舆论使其对贰臣的评价经历从宽松,到只提顺天命,再到逐步不提以至于贬斥的过程。成功的朝代基本都会经历这样一个过程,而很多失败的王国则会有一个在群雄逐鹿时便强调忠君的环境(如东周时除了秦齐以外的所有诸侯,三国时吴国等);这似乎说明了朝代的成功和对社会舆论的控制力有很大的关系。不过,不是每一个朝代都会经历这样一个完整的过程。像隋唐的贰臣,唐朝基本没有进行贬斥;不过这也有可能是唐朝从皇帝开始就不能算是个忠臣的原因(实际上,基本每一个以造反起家的朝代,都不太会贬斥贰臣;而每一个外族入住,基本都会在朝代中贬斥贰臣)。

清朝完整地经历了这样一个舆论的变化过程。

在清朝入关之前及入关之初,清朝一直有一个对贰臣比较轻松的环境,贰臣能够活在比较宽容的社会环境中。无论是终身不仕的前朝遗民还是当权的清王朝,对贰臣都没有太多关于忠贞与否的评价。而到了平三藩之时,社会对贰臣的评价一般是以顺天命为主,不太做过于深入的讨论。到了乾隆朝,贰臣寿数也都到了,清王朝通过修订贰臣传,以及进一步深入宣传儒家忠君的思想,将贰臣的行为进行贬斥。这一个过程,有很多原因。社会上,经济上,政治上的原因都有。根据先贤的说法“黄狸黑狸,得鼠者雄”。虽然舆论是各方势力共同决定的,但此时的得鼠者,估计只能是清廷。无论是贰臣还是遗民,估计都不太愿意在《贰臣传》中被人提到。不过舆论到了清朝的“国家利益”之前,似乎也不能做什么抵抗。

清廷可能是用经济的力量无为而治,也可能是通过修书来有为而治,这些都不重要。重要的是,自始自终,清朝都没有做出与自身利益相悖的事。整个舆论的形成,是多方的力量博弈。而清朝,则做了一个理智的选择者的角色。在每一次利益变化之中,清朝政府都选择了一个适合自己的舆论环境。可能清朝没有像现代美国政府那样高端的监控手段,但在对舆论的控制这个问题上,清朝证明了其实通过影响来控制舆论,并不需要复杂的监控设备——只要不要作死就好了;而这是很难得的。在中国历史上,有无数的朝代在舆论上选择自杀,而有些诸侯,甚至至死,都不知道自己是死于自杀。

以史为鉴,可以知兴替。其知,在于知兴者有知。舆论的控制,是兴者的一个重要技能。甚至只靠舆论的力量,一个政党,诸侯就能够兴起。纳粹,苏联,美英,都有极其强大的舆论领导能力;而法国,在德国进攻之前,舆论分为两派,一派追求国际主义,对德国的不公境遇充满同情;一派追求武力,认为只要马奇诺防线依然屹立法国就能高枕无忧——知兴替者,就在于此。未来的历史是不是还会重复这样的轨迹呢?

圣经说,太阳底下没有任何新东西。

Perfection is death

Being perfect is good. But trying to be perfect is just a death sentence to anyone.

There is no perfection

In the theory world, there is a top for anything, and you can reach perfection just by spending enough. It’s always true that a project’s quality is linearly boosted as time spent. However, it’s not. Just like speed, you can reach a certain speed easily by accelerating for a certain time, but if you want more speed, more accelerating time/energy is just useless. You can never reach c even if you spend an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy. It’s the same in any project. You can get to a certain quality level with a certain amount of time in the beginning. However, no matter how long you spend, it’s never perfect.

We use the backup project as an example to explain it in detail. First, we define the perfect state of a backup project:

  • No one can access the backup data except the owner
  • The owner will never lose any useful data because of the backup

First, it’s something that can be easily done. You write a script to diff the data, divide data into small s3 objects, GPG encrypt it and sign it, then send it to Amazon Glacier. Just some lines of script, easy.

But when you put it into your crontab, you find something is missing. It’s not a perfect backup scheme. The data can be lost if you accidentally deleted it when you are between the backup cycle. It’s not tolerable! But you can still solve it. So you write a service, and then go into your kernel source tree, open the fs/open.c, patch the kernel, restart the system, and find not all calls are good. So change more sources, patch the kernel, restart the system, and again, and again…

You think you have a perfect solution now. Every time you write the file, it will immediately transfer to Glacier; Even before the file reaches the disk from the cache, it has already safely in the cloud. No way to lose data now.

But the problem can always arise. It’s still a long way to perfection. What if Amazon bankrupt? Easy, add the backup to Aliyun; What if your backup GPG key is lost? Print the encrypted version and post it anywhere; What if the network is down? Write another service to do a watchdog job and beep loudly whenever a backup fails. Beep is of course, not perfect. You need to have two private network lines to Amazon and Aliyun just to provide stable networking, so you buy AWS Direct Connect and some fuck network setup for Aliyun. But it can still fail, so you build an automatic program to call Amazon and Aliyun to fix the private line when it finds the line is broken.

Yeah, you have a perfect backup solution. But no?

It’s still far, far away from being perfection.

What if RSA is not secure? You need a private asymmetric encrypt method to make sure it’s safe(I use VXEnc~). What if your important idea is lost when typing in TTY? Patch kernel again and add keystream backup. What if kernel panics? Rewrite the kernel to perfect so that to make it never panic.

But it’s still far away from being perfection.

You still need to write a git-like branch system to manage the backup-restore history, you need to store every object’s travel history, and you need to ensure the network is good once again. Add another several providers. And you need a local offline copy, so you build a service that’s just like Glacier. You need perfection, and Earth has a possibility to nuclear war(0.7% for average given year, it is said), 0.7% data loss rate? Not tolerable! So you need to build the world’s biggest rocket launch station to send out backup copy in real-time as you save a file. But it still needs much more improvement to keep it secure in space.

 

You see, it can never complete.

 

I spent about 2 hours to finish the first step, but much more time has been spent since then, and I have never finished all the things on the list yet. I believe much more can be done, just to make the simple two requirement successful:

  • No one can access the backup data except the owner
  • The owner will never lose any useful data because of the backup

I developed a feeling that even all human beings spend all their life just trying to finish such a simple backup task perfectly, they will fail. Even if all human generations, one after another, spent infinite time on this simple data backup project, they will not achieve perfection.

There is no perfection.

 

There can always be perfection

Though in reality, there is no perfection, you can always find some better ways for anything. You can always find something you can do to make your project better. Since there is the internet, you can receive far more information than your ancestors. They may live in a dreamland that they have done everything perfectly even if they can’t be sure whether or not their house can stand over the next storm, but you can’t. You will always receive information about how to make something better. That information tends to make you believe it’s easy and simple to build a better place. Your knowledge is improved than your ancestors, and your ability enables you to do things that will help your project to perfection. And your brain refuses to believe anything is finished until it is perfection.

The smarter you are, the harder to lie to your brain. If you are good enough, you may find all the things that you have joined are marked as undone.

Modern lifestyle is a helper for this crisis. In the good old time, you can know when you finished work. When you make bottles for sale, you make bottles, even though they are imperfect, you will not spend time to think that you should rob it from your customers to make it more perfect. When the bottles are out of your hand, it has finished, no more headache.

But modern days, you are a worker with multiple projects. You can not finish a part of the project and marked it as done. As you can always make changes to that part, you will always try to make it perfect. As long as you have access to that part, it is never marked as done.

As a human, you will have the Zeigarnik effect whenever there are things undone. When all things are never done, you will be mad. Everyone feels that madness in modern society. People want to do things, but they can’t, as there are many other things to do. They want to do A, but there are BCDEFGHIJ; They want to finish B, but there are ACDEFGHIJ, and much more clearly shined in their brain than B because of Zeigarnik effect. They decide to finish J first, but their brain keeps thinking of ABCDEFGHI. They decide to start a perfect timetable with a perfect J, and J will never finish as there is no perfection.

In the end, they finish nothing.

But still, ABCDEFGHIJ is in their brain. They need to do it. So they browser the internet trying to find something for B and find a good way to solve part of C, they did it, and remember B is not even started. Guiltily, they close the computer, see the To-Do list, and find the H, trying to do it in 5 minutes, and mobile phone rings.

Do you ever have the feeling that you have done nothing after a tiring day?

Don’t you?

Henry Ford invented assembly lines to save the worker from low efficiency. Some textbook says assembly lines improve efficiency by letting everyone do the repeated task. However, it’s not entirely true. Assembly lines improve efficiency by letting workers forget about their previous product and focus on the current one. An experienced car master can easily build a car from raw metals if he wants, but even in every detail he is more experienced than assembly workers, he will never reach 1/5 efficiency of a man in an assembly line. He can build a car in 10000 hours with all the tools a worker has, but 1000 workers can do the same thing in 1 hour.

It’s not because he is not experienced. Even the assembly line is filled with fresh new workers. Everyone can be much more efficient than the lonely car master.

It’s because he can touch his product even when a part is finished.

The only solution to this problem is a Freeze and GTD lifestyle. For every single project, it should be a test, which tells you whether the project is finished. If a test is passed, even your guts tell you the project is in a mess, and you should never touch the project again. It’s finished. Not only so, but it’s also frozen. In a preset period, you shouldn’t do anything to improve the project even if you do want to improve it. Do a new project after the period if you still remember the project. But never think of the project when it is finished, as it will never be on your list again.

Have you heard it somewhere? It seems familiar? Yes, it’s TDD. You write more production code every day (exclude test) in TDD is not because your time is magically doubled, it’s because your code can be anything, ANYTHING, as long as it passes the test. Whenever some code passes the test, you will not and should not review it. It’s a way to fight Zeigarnik effect, just like the assembly line.

If you can always focus on your topic, you will have 5~10 times performance boost. It is verified data. Assembly lines make workers focus, and 10x performance is seen. Good TDD makes programmers focus, and for some programmers, 100x performance is seen. You can also have this performance boost happen in your daily life, just do like you are in an assembly, and you will be fine.

 

Is Meg Jay Right?

In Meg Jay’s New York Times article “The Downside of Cohabiting before Marriage” publishes on April 14, 2012, the author suggests that cohabiting may not be a good factor in marriage like many people assume, actually, it may enlarge the possibility for couples to divorce after marriage. She argues that cohabiting couples may just slide into marriage without serious conversations about why they should live together, and, unfortunately, people’s standards of a live-in partner are lower than their standards of a spouse in most cases, which leads to unhappiness after marriage and therefore enlarges the risk of divorcing. Meg also suggests that people may have different views toward cohabiting: Women are more likely to think cohabiting as a step towards marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship. These asymmetry ideas may lead to low quality of understanding and may eventually lead to the break of a marriage. She argues that cohabiting is filled with high switching cost, which may make people be “locked in” by cohabiting, and miss their true love because of it. Finally, Meg concludes that because of the high risk of cohabiting before marriage, young people should discuss the commitment level and motivation before sliding into cohabiting to prevent the cohabitation effects.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many real examples in Meg’s article, and the examples Meg gives in her article do not support her conclusion solidly. Firstly, she suggests that there are some risks lie in cohabitation itself, and gives examples which show that heedless cohabitation which leads to unhappy life and eventually leads to break up of the relationship. However, all those examples only suggest that a heedless relationship will end badly, which is a common knowledge. So that those examples are not incontrovertible evidence of the risks lie in cohabitation. She also mentions in her article that cohabitation is loaded with switching cost, which makes it difficult to break up and finds a more suitable partner. But in fact any close relationship will bring switching cost, and will make people have a hard time to make right choices. It is true that cohabitation is hard to break up, but breaking up a marriage is even harder. In this case, I believe marriage is even more dangerous than cohabitation. The author assumes that a never-breaking marriage is the ultimate goal. However, this is a false supposition. There are many stories about unhappy couples who live together for lifelong time. They waste all their life to endure each other, and miss all the opportunity to find a better partner. It’s more tragic than those who divorce and then find a better partner. So that I think a right partner is much better than an unbreakable marriage.

As for the statistic, she suggests that there are some researches which show that couples who have cohabiting experience have a higher divorce rate than those who have no cohabiting experience. However, she fails to give us the exact numbers. But according to a longterm research carried out by U.S. government which has a sample base of 22682 people, the couples who have cohabitation experience have a divorce probability of nineteen percents, and the probability of divorce for those who did not have cohabitation experience is twenty percents. So, according to this research those couples who cohabit before marriage are not more likely to get divorce. Because of the fact that most cohabiting couples are more open-minded compare to those who have no cohabiting experience, they are more open to choose divorce if their marriage doesn’t work out. So the lower possibility of divorce actually suggests that couples who cohabit before marriage have a better marriage quality than couples who do not. And there is indeed a research that shows cohabitors who marry report greater happiness, fewer disagreements, and less instability in their unions and are more able to resolve their relationship conflicts through nonviolent means. So that I believe that cohabiting experience may help people live a better life after marriage.

In her article, Meg Jay has given us some evidence which cannot fully support her ideas. The real world statistics also suggest that cohabitation may have a good effect on marriage. Therefore I believe “Cohabitation Effect” only exists on some special clients of Meg Jay. For most other people, cohabitation actually has a good effect.

Television-Driven Social Revolution: The Box Behind a Stormy Age

The 1960s is one of the most interesting period in American history. In that period the American new generation creats a new culture which never existed before.  It brings the liberty, some creative art styles, along with some extreme violence. It is an age of selfishness and extreme. No one knows why all these would happen. However, a possible reason of the stormy sixties may be the wide deployment of televisions.

In mid-1950 , the U.S. has become increasing urbanized, and the modern technology has gone everywhere from urban to suburban area. Televisions are widely deployed across all American homes by 1960s. Virtually every home has one television set at that point of time. People, for the first time in the history, are able to see what was happening all around the world while sitting comfortably in their sofas. While people spending more and more time watching television shows, a new culture based on television raises naturally.

At first, the television is nothing more but a radio with the function of transport image. However, with the rapid developing of TV industry, people has found more and more ways for televisions to extend into people’s lives. In 1960s, televisions has already conquer all American homes. From news reporting to president election, all of the public events has been shaped by this little box. The candidates go to TV show, debate and advertisement in order to attract the public. Kennedy, which starts as one of the “greenest” candidates in American history, can never win the presidency at the age of 42 without the power of television debate. It is said at that time the candidates’ election groups look like trying to sell president like toothpaste. So that without TV, the idea of “New Frontier” would only be a personal thought of Kennedy, not an idea that influence the next few decades. Televisions also shape many popular cultures. Without TV, Elvis Presley’s music would not affect such a big audience; Hippies would not lead to a nationwide stream of counterculture movement. Televisions are the beacon network that spread the fire of human right movement. Martin Luther King may not be able to draw so much attention and take such a big step to the change of American society. Malcolm X can hardly reach so many people if all he could do is speak to people face to face. It is television that makes all those revolutions possible.

The television might not be the most obvious factor in 1960s revolution, but the television is surely the root that supports the revolution’s blossom. With televisions, information can spread all across the country vividly. With televisions, moviemaker, music writer, singer and dancer can gain more audience across a wider area. With televisions, reporter can choose more ways to process and spread their news across the entire nation. And, the most important of all, because of the wide deploy of televisions, common people will spend more time on political events, which greatly changes the politics in early 1960s, therefore changes the relationship between government and people, which is the beginning of the revolution. The television changes the way people sell their products, and it also make all the experiments in sex revolution possible to spread, which in turn influence the new generation. In a word, it is the television that kindles the fire of the revolution of 1960s.