As a biography written by an American writer, there are reasons to believe that this version is rather objective. And it’s so interesting, for example, guess who is Choo Choo Train. And after reading this book, you will realize that Trump’s government is not the most stupid one in history.
What had happened to explain why this lead never led to“modern” science in China? The great margin between theories and practice killed science. More detailed, Absolute Monarchy killed science in practice while Confucianism kept science away Ideologically.
In many ways, theories in ancient China are prosperous (not necessarily advanced). And technologies in ancient China is advanced (yes, advanced and much more advance). How every Absolute Monarchy stopped theories to apply to practice and therefore killed science.
Hierarchy of Absolute Monarchy is extremely harmful. On the one hand, it stopped applying theories to practice. In tradition, researchers who work in theories rank much higher than artisan (engineers). Hierarchy stopped researchers work with artisans. There’s another view: Capitalism is the mother of modern science. And the reason for this is that trading needs math, sailing needs physics. In addition, though trading and sailing exist in any kind of society, Capitalism needs those two much more than other kinds. Capitalism needs trading and sailing desperately. Theories are meaningful to capitalism after they are applied to practice. In short, Capitalism encourages to apply theories to practice while Absolute Monarchy stops this procedure from happening.
On the other hand, Hierarchy requires ancient researchers who haven’t ranked high enough (which are most of them) to convince their boss in a short period of time. Usually, the emperor will not spend any time arguing with you. So they tend to use the analogy to express ideas. Which is basically opposite to the deduction which is crucial to modern science. Meanwhile, Absolute Monarchy means to comply while democracy means doubts. So here it comes to the mind level.
Confucianism cares about social problems and only. In other words, if Taoism takes control of China instead of Confucianism, science might appear in China much earlier than the time of Galileo.
Confucianism killed science indirectly by controls public in mind which prevent Capitalism take place in China, even though iron processing technology is much more advanced in ancient China.
Confucianism suggests to governing without interface. Do without doing. This kind of thoughts conflict with the practical spirits of experiments which is crucial to modern science. There’s a great example of this: I Ching. This book explains this world in a schematic way. If you apply the system built by this book, you no longer need to observe this world nor practice. That’s how science is killed.
Science is unplannable. You need to provide a proper environment. After that, all you can do is to pray for seeds to germinate. So in a word, the answer to the Needham Problem is that ancient China is not the right environment for science to germinate.
This book is based on this thought: Religions without the supernatural and religions without gods, but none which does not subdivide the world into things and times and persons that are sacred and others that as a consequence are profane. Therefore, we have no right to decide what kind of knowledge is useful nor who have the right to educate nor who have the right to be educated.
The defects of modern schools
School constantly indoctrinate groups of beliefs to us: There are secrets everywhere; If we live a happy life depend on if we understand those secretes; If you want to understand those secrets you have to follow one pre-designed long-lasting procedure; Only teachers can reveal secrets properly. Try another one: Children belong to schools; Children learn in schools; Schools are the only place for children to learn.
There’s one thing that the modern school system is extremely good at: keep this society stable. So the poor are robbed of their self-respect by subscribing to a creed that grants salvation only through school. At least the Church gave them a chance to repent at the hour of death. The school leaves them with the expectation (a counterfeit hope) that their grandchildren will make it.
Latent functions performed by modern school systems are complicated: custodial care, selection, indoctrination and learning. Schools try to perform all those functions but result in failures in most of those aspects. (We did a really good job on indoctrination)
We are not saying that all those aspects can’t be accomplished by one agency but the design of the existing agency is not proper anymore.
1. Custodial Care
Let’s put it in an easy way: Children are not happy at school. Parents spend tons of money on schooling while getting a little outcome. The very only reason they choose a school is that there are no other options.
In modern school systems, the selection is based on diplomas instead of ability. The outcome of this mismatch is schools become a tool of Social Reproduction.
There are three kinds of learning: skill-learning, education for inventive and creative behaviour and purpose-learning. All of them can be aided by institutional arrangement but they are of a different, frequently opposed nature.
Without skill-learning, we have no tool to conduct any plans. Poor education for inventive and creative behaviour stops us from moving forward. The lack of purpose-learning makes us cunning egoists.
Unfortunately, in modern China, we do a fairly good job in skill-learning while the latter two are extremely poorly done.
The field of education needs a Renaissance.
School is not a cure for poverty. Learning is. We believe that attending schools makes us successful. Wrong. Master the ability to learn makes us successful. Schooling is very much like dieting:
Alice: “I’m dieting.”
Bob: “Are you losing any weight?”
We have to realize that the key is not about teaching but learning. It’s a positive action.
What we can do is to provide a proper environment for anyone who wants to learn.
School in China tend to serve just one purpose: to promise Social Mobility, a special kind of selection, to the public. It keeps society stable, which is good. As China growing we need more creative talents to push science forward. We need more leaders with a purpose to solve social problems. While our educating system is doing such a terrible job in helping those two kinds of man.
On the other hand, China has so many people but so few educating resources. Raising funds helps. But the very only fundamental solution is to take away the privilege of teaching from schools. This is the only way to bring equal right to learn to everyone.
This is such a useful book which solves tons of my question on the relationship. Why we love each other? Why we need love? What’s the perfect love? I’ve been wondering answers to those questions for long. Though I’ve found some practical answers on the internet, I can’t set up a system to unify my answers. Luckily, this book did this for me.
What is love?
Let’s talk about what is NOT love. Marriage is not based on love. Actually, it has no necessary relationship with love. Marriage is one kind of financial insurance, a practice of symbiotic bond. Secondly, love is not a relationship with a certain object but an attitude, an intention which decides how a person interact with the world. You can only begin to feel real love in relationships without certain purpose.
Love is a constant intention of actions, not a depressed feeling. It’s constant instead of falling in love. Using a general expression, loving is more about giving away instead of just accepting. It’s a two-way interaction.
How about one-way loving? Unconditional one-way love brings you fear. If the very only reason you are loved is your some kind of advantage or you deserve to be loved, questions come to you: What if I failed to make others happy, will they still love me? That’s why in modern relationships one tends to feel a lack of security. In fact, if you were loved because you make others happy, you are not loved but used.
There’s another interesting fact: when you are fared of losing love actually you fare of loving. Loving means give away without insurance. This is some sort of circle, just like confidence and courage.
Meanwhile selfish is definitely not love but controversial. The tendency of selfish is caused by the lack of power of loving. One can not love anything so that he tries to seek satisfaction in other aspects of life. For example, mothers who care for their children too much, because they can achieve their dream, they push their children so hard without caring if what children want. What children get is hate of living from their mothers protected by moral. In addition, both too much caring and too much selfless are both caused by the lack of love. And usually, too much selflessness is much more harmful because morally they can’t be criticized.
Why we need love?
We all have a tendency to get away with loneliness.
Let’s take a look at alcohol. Why we are so eager to get drunk when we get sad? In this kind of madness, a colorful outer side world disappeared. You are disengaged with the world together with this damn loneliness. We love drugs and religion for the same reason.
This is why we feel even more lonely after sexual relationships without love. This kind of relationship is a desperate temptation to get away from loneliness. But without love, this relationship leads to nothing but high in a flash. In addition, we are not saying that sexual relationship is the same as other kinds of love. The love between couples is exclusive and requires commitment while other kind of love tend to be extensive. There’s a unique element in this kind of love: the fundamental difference between boys and girls.
There is another very different kind of love: love from mothers. Other kinds of love share an intention to get together. But love from mothers requires a mother to let go when the time comes. It’s about separation. That’s why love from mothers are considered the noblest. Meanwhile, it’s the same reason why men are so eager for accomplishment: they gain no satisfaction of succuss from raising children.
How to love
As we talk about earlier, loving is more about giving away, which mean loving is a kind of skill which needs to be practised. So there’s a common thought which is way more wrong: the reason no one loves me is that I haven’t met the right person. If we apply this thought to painting: the reason I haven’t complete any good work is I haven’t seen the right sight. Apparently, if you want to become a good artist you should practice instead of waiting for the right sight.
Modern society is kind of disturb us from loving. When self conciseness grows, society gets unstable. That’s why we are usually required to hold our feelings. We are asked to understand each other which is good. But avoiding conflicts means you have no chance to get to know each other. Two individuals living together without any conflicts is not we called couples but strangers. This kind of relationship is about finding a shelter to pretend to get away from loneliness. Conflicts sometimes are good and necessary, they lead to true understanding.
There are two kind of character: maternal character and fatherly charactor. They are separated becuase love from mothers is unconditional and love from father is conditional. The pricipal of love from father is that you have to take responsibility of your actions: I love you because you act like me, you accomplished my wishes. So maternal charactor is that no matter what had happened, I love you and wish you can be happy while fatherly charactor stands for: you can not run away from consequence of your actions. If you want my love, you have to correct your mistake.
A mutual person internalizes both maternal character and fatherly charactor. If he failed to internalize fatherly character, he is very likely to have wrong judgement and become a goody-goody. If he failed to internalize mathernal charactor, he is very likely to be a mean guy. After internalized those two kind of charactor, he then has the ability to properly show the energitic side of his inner world. He cares, respects and understands others. That’s love.
There are two kinds of character: maternal character and fatherly character. They are separated because love from mothers is unconditional and love from father is conditional. The principle of love from father is that you have to take responsibility for your actions: I love you because you act like me, you accomplished my wishes. So maternal character is that no matter what had happened, I love you and wish you can be happy while fatherly character stands for: you can not run away from consequence of your actions. If you want my love, you have to correct your mistake.
A mutual person internalizes both maternal character and fatherly character. If he failed to internalize fatherly character, he is very likely to have the wrong judgement and become a goody-goody. If he failed to internalize maternal character, he is very likely to be a mean guy. After internalized those two kinds of character, he then has the ability to properly show the energetic side of his inner world. He cares, respects and understands others. That’s love.
It’s just so gland to witness, if I may, friends growing up.
You see, before Howard met Bernadette, he was such a nerd. For sure he has a colourful inner world all the time. But somehow he was disconnected with others. Till I saw this one, he had mastered the art of love.
So is Mike Ross, Louis Litt and maybe Harvey Specter. It’s my honour to meet you guys.
I went to a lecture by Prof. Wang Liping. She discussed civilizing, from Durkheim to Gökalp. Honestly, I’m a freshman in this field. But comments given by Prof. Li Meng did raise some interesting questions.
Talking about civilizing, the understanding of nation is crucial. And there are two kinds of understandings: Political Nationalism and Ethnic Nationalism. As for Political Nationalism, a nation based on the commitment of individuals to politics. And for Ethnic Nationalism, a nation based on land or blood. France is a great example of Political Nationalism while German is rather Ethnic Nationalism.
Then it comes to Durkheim. The nation is a social fact. But it can’t be seen as a group of individuals. For example, for an individual, nation can not be chosen. It’s settled. And a nation is more powerful than communities, for a nation has a political centre, its own thoughts and feelings. General humanity can’t support a nation while a community might be possible. That’s why nations take part in cosmopolitanism as individuals.
The main course is Gökalp. A nation is beyond races. Ottomanism is disconnected from people and their culture. Civilization and culture share the same mediums but civilization can be adapted while culture can’t. When he tried to rebuild Turkey, he had 3 choices: imperialism, religion, turanism. Instead of making a choice, he built Turkish Nationalism for imperialism and turanism are lack of moral bases and religion is not strong enough. To a certain degree, nationalism can be regarded as an alternative to religion.
Prof. Li raised tons of meaningful questions. Here are some selection which I’m interested in but answering them is beyond my capacity:
- Nationalism attract some disturbs those days. Why? For nations, nationalism kind of encourages conflicts. For individuals, nationalism represses personal development. If there’s a solution to those drawbacks?
- How to build the culture which the development of China requires?
- Turkey break the crack between different level of society by the moral community. If there’s anything useful for China?
- Islamism is powerful. If there’s a way for Gökalp to rebuild Turkey in this way? How to ensure separation of church and state?
Oh! It’s such a lovely night! Though I can’t get Jeremy Clarkson out of my mind. They just share exactly the same hairstyle!
I have to say that when I checked NCPA’s website, I saw Rattle’s picture and I wondered: I saw this guy somewhere. Oh, it’s the cover of the playlist Sir Simon Rattle Essentials. Then I checked about him, his edition of The Planets and The Nutcracker are just so famous! How stupid I am!
I have to say LSO is wonderful. Last time when Muti came to NCPA, Chicago Symphony Orchestra went alone with a compressed size. That’s a nightmare! This time, LSO together with Rattle is just, it might be a little bit inappropriate, juicy! Oh! The plucking of cellos is soul-touching! And the string section is of tons of power!
It’s so lucky to meet Simon Rattle. And Riccardo Chailly is coming to NCPA this weekend. And Anne-Sophie Mutter will come this winter. I love her edition of Four Seasons with Karajan and Vienna Philharmonic so much. It’s immaculate! It’s like dreams come true!
Meeting another Phaedrus
It doesn’t take long to read this book. I guess it follows the ice burg theory from Hemingway. So there’s a lot you can wander around.
I read this book with James Bay, James Blunt, Labrinth, and Passenger. It seems that Siri does read my mind and this book.
To keep the ice burg theory, I would like to quote one sentence as the note: There isn’t time, so brief is life, for bickerings, apologies, heartburnings, callings to account. There is only time for loving, and but an instant, so to speak, for that.
I agree that to keep simple is good. But as for this book itself, ahem, it’s rubbish!
It has no structure, no highlight. Every single point inside, you’ve known it a thousand years ago! And this book presents those points in a damn random way!
Just keep yourself away from this book to save yourself.
- PM’s duty:
- evaluate product opportunities
- What problem you are going to solve?
- For who?
- Market size?
- What’s the benchmark to evaluate the result?
- Competitor analysis?
- Why us?
- Why now?
- Marketing strategy?
- Necessary needs?
- define products
- evaluate product opportunities
- Use data to speak.
- After entering the developing era, try not to modify products.
- Design thinking.
- Charter User Programs.
- People don’t buy what you do; people buy why you do it.
- Design the product before you actually develop it.
- Good products satisfy needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.