Break the mystery of female orgasm: 2021

I finally get to the last chapter. About Savior, we can't avoid Schopenhauer's view on this issue. Before I explain, let's see what Schopenhauer says about genius. On Genius, he wrote:

No difference of rank, position, or birth, is so great as the gulf that separates the countless millions who use their head only in the service of their belly, in other words, look upon it as an instrument of the will, and those very few and rare persons who have the courage to say: No! it is too good for that; my head shall be active only in its own service; it shall try to comprehend the wondrous and varied spectacle of this world, and then reproduce it in some form‥‥ Of course, I am here referring to those who have not only the courage, but also the call, and therefore the right, to order the head to quit the service of the will; with a result that proves the sacrifice to have been worth the making‥‥ But even though their talent be small, so long as it is real, there will always be a sharp line of demarcation between them and the millions‥‥ A genius has a double intellect, one for himself and the service of his will; the other for the world, of which he becomes the mirror, in virtue of his purely objective attitude towards it‥‥ The normal man, on the other hand, has only a single intellect, which may be called subjective by contrast with the objective intellect of genius. However acute this subjective intellect may be—and it exists in very various degrees of perfection—it is never on the same level with the double intellect of genius‥‥ At the same time it is obvious that a double intellect like this must, as a rule, obstruct the service of the will; and this explains the poor capacity often shown by genius in the conduct of life. And what specially characterizes genius is that it has none of that sobriety of temper which is always to be found in the ordinary simple intellect, be it acute or dull‥‥ He devotes himself to the constant increase, rectification and extension, not of mere learning, but of real systematic knowledge and insight; and remains untouched by the fate that overtakes him personally, so long as it does not disturb him in his work. It is thus a life which raises a man and sets him above fate and its changes. Always thinking, learning, experimenting, practicing his knowledge, the man soon comes to look upon this second life as the chief mode of existence, and his merely personal life as something subordinate, serving only to advance ends higher than itself‥‥ This is an example which we, the salt of the earth, should endeavor to follow, by never letting anything disturb us in the pursuit of our intellectual life, however much the storm of the world may invade and agitate our personal environment; always remembering that we are the sons, not of the bondwoman, but of the free‥‥ This intellectual life, like some gift from heaven, hovers over the stir and movement of the world‥‥ The difference between the genius and the ordinary man is, no doubt, a quantitative one, in so far as it is a difference of degree; but I am tempted to regard it also as qualitative, in view of the fact that ordinary minds, notwithstanding individual variation, have a certain tendency to think alike. Thus on similar occasions their thoughts at once all take a similar direction, and run on the same lines; and this explains why their judgments constantly agree—not, however, because they are based on truth. To such lengths does this go that certain fundamental views obtain amongst mankind at all times, and are always being repeated and brought forward anew, whilst the great minds of all ages are in open or secret opposition to them‥‥ A genius is a man in whose mind the world is presented as an object is presented in a mirror, but with a degree more of clearness and a greater distinction of outline than is attained by ordinary people. It is from him that humanity may look for most instruction; for the deepest insight into the most important matters is to be acquired, not by an observant attention to detail, but by a close study of things as a whole. And if his mind reaches maturity, the instruction he gives will be conveyed now in one form, now in another. Thus genius may be defined as an eminently clear consciousness of things in general, and therefore, also of that which is opposed to them, namely, one's own self‥‥ The world looks up to a man thus endowed, and expects to learn something about life and its real nature. But several highly favorable circumstances must combine to produce genius, and this is a very rare event. It happens only now and then, let us say once in a century, that a man is born whose intellect so perceptibly surpasses the normal measure as to amount to that second faculty which seems to be accidental, as it is out of all relation to the will. He may remain a long time without being recognized or appreciated, stupidity preventing the one and envy the other. But should this once come to pass, mankind will crowd round him and his works, in the hope that he may be able to enlighten some of the darkness of their existence or inform them about it. His message is, to some extent, a revelation, and he himself a higher being, even though he may be but little above the ordinary standard‥‥ In order to have original, uncommon, and perhaps even immortal thoughts, it is enough to estrange oneself so fully from the world of things for a few moments‥‥ By itself, genius can produce original thoughts just as little as a woman by herself can bear children. Outward circumstances must come to fructify genius, and be, as it were, a father to its progeny‥‥ The mind of genius is among other minds what the carbuncle is among precious stones: it sends forth light of its own, while the others reflect only that which they have received. The relation of the genius to the ordinary mind may also be described as that of an idio-electrical body to one which merely is a conductor of electricity‥‥ Great minds, of which there is scarcely one in a hundred millions, are thus the lighthouses of humanity; and without them mankind would lose itself in the boundless sea of monstrous error and bewilderment‥‥ He who wishes to experience gratitude from his contemporaries, must adjust his pace to theirs. But great things are never produced in this way. And he who wants to do great things must direct his gaze to posterity, and in firm confidence elaborate his work for coming generations. No doubt, the result may be that he will remain quite unknown to his contemporaries, and comparable to a man who, compelled to spend his life upon a lonely island, with great effort sets up a monument there, to transmit to future sea-farers the knowledge of his existence. If he thinks it a hard fate, let him console himself with the reflection that the ordinary man who lives for practical aims only, often suffers a like fate, without having any compensation to hope for; inasmuch as he may, under favorable conditions, spend a life of material production, earning, buying, building, fertilizing, laying out, founding, establishing, beautifying with daily effort and unflagging zeal, and all the time think that he is working for himself; and yet in the end it is his descendants who reap the benefit of it all, and sometimes not even his descendants. It is the same with the man of genius; he, too, hopes for his reward and for honor at least; and at last finds that he has worked for posterity alone. Both, to be sure, have inherited a great deal from their ancestors‥‥ The compensation I have mentioned as the privilege of genius lies, not in what it is to others, but in what it is to itself. What man has in any real sense lived more than he whose moments of thought make their echoes heard through the tumult of centuries? Perhaps, after all, it would be the best thing for a genius to attain undisturbed possession of himself, by spending his life in enjoying the pleasure of his own thoughts, his own works, and by admitting the world only as the heir of his ample existence. Then the world would find the mark of his existence only after his death, as it finds that of the Ichnolith‥‥ If a great product of genius is recommended to the ordinary, simple mind, it will take as much pleasure in it as the victim of gout receives in being invited to a ball‥‥ For La Bruyère was quite right when he said: All the wit in the world is lost upon him who has none‥‥ All this is part of the reward of genius, and compensates him for a lonely existence in a world with which he has nothing in common and no sympathies‥‥ However great, then, however admirable or instructive, a long posterity may think the author of immortal works, during his lifetime he will appear to his contemporaries small, wretched, and insipid in proportion‥‥ Let us, then, not be surprised if we find men of genius generally unsociable and repellent. It is not their want of sociability that is to blame. Their path through the world is like that of a man who goes for a walk on a bright summer morning. He gazes with delight on the beauty and freshness of nature, but he has to rely wholly on that for entertainment; for he can find no society but the peasants as they bend over the earth and cultivate the soil. It is often the case that a great mind prefers soliloquy to the dialogue he may have in this world. If he condescends to it now and then, the hollowness of it may possibly drive him back to his soliloquy; for in forgetfulness of his interlocutor, or caring little whether he understands or not, he talks to him as a child talks to a doll‥‥ Modesty in a great mind would, no doubt, be pleasing to the world; but, unluckily, it is a contradictio in adjecto. It would compel a genius to give the thoughts and opinions, nay, even the method and style, of the million preference over his own; to set a higher value upon them; and, wide apart as they are, to bring his views into harmony with theirs, or even suppress them altogether, so as to let the others hold the field. In that case, however, he would either produce nothing at all, or else his achievements would be just upon a level with theirs. Great, genuine and extraordinary work can be done only in so far as its author disregards the method, the thoughts, the opinions of his contemporaries, and quietly works on, in spite of their criticism, on his side despising what they praise. No one becomes great without arrogance of this sort. Should his life and work fall upon a time which cannot recognize and appreciate him, he is at any rate true to himself; like some noble traveler forced to pass the night in a miserable inn; when morning comes, he contentedly goes his way‥‥ A poet or philosopher should have no fault to find with his age if it only permits him to do his work undisturbed in his own corner; nor with his fate if the corner granted him allows of his following his vocation without having to think about other people‥‥ Countless times, in indignation at their incapacity, their total lack of discernment, their bestiality, I have been forced to echo the old complaint that folly is the mother and the nurse of the human race‥‥ But at other times I have been astounded that from such a race there could have gone forth so many arts and sciences, abounding in so much use and beauty, even though it has always been the few that produce them‥‥ Those who emerge from the multitude, those who are called men of genius, are merely the lucida intervalla of the whole human race. They achieve that which others could not possibly achieve. Their originality is so great that not only is their divergence from others obvious, but their individuality is expressed with such force, that all the men of genius who have ever existed show, every one of them, peculiarities of character and mind; so that the gift of his works is one which he alone of all men could ever have presented to the world. This is what makes that simile of Ariosto's so true and so justly celebrated: Natura lo fece e poi ruppe lo stampo. After Nature stamps a man of genius, she breaks the die‥‥ Now, mankind is fond of venerating something; but its veneration is generally directed to the wrong object, and it remains so directed until posterity comes to set it right. But the educated public is no sooner set right in this, than the honor which is due to genius degenerates; just as the honor which the faithful pay to their saints easily passes into a frivolous worship of relics‥‥ Because a great man has opened up to them the treasures of his inmost being, and, by a supreme effort of his faculties, produced works which not only redound to their elevation and enlightenment, but will also benefit their posterity to the tenth and twentieth generation; because he has presented mankind with a matchless gift, these varlets think themselves justified in sitting in judgment upon his personal morality, and trying if they cannot discover here or there some spot in him which will soothe the pain they feel at the sight of so great a mind, compared with the overwhelming feeling of their own nothingness‥‥ It is rather a peculiar kind of instinct, which drives the man of genius to give permanent form to what he sees and feels, without being conscious of any further motive. It works, in the main, by a necessity similar to that which makes a tree bear its fruit; and no external condition is needed but the ground upon which it is to thrive‥‥ On a closer examination, it seems as though, in the case of a genius, the will to live, which is the spirit of the human species, were conscious of having, by some rare chance, and for a brief period, attained a greater clearness of vision, and were now trying to secure it, or at least the outcome of it, for the whole species, to which the individual genius in his inmost being belongs; so that the light which he sheds about him may pierce the darkness and dullness of ordinary human consciousness and there produce some good effect‥‥ Arising in some such way, this instinct drives the genius to carry his work to completion, without thinking of reward or applause or sympathy; to leave all care for his own personal welfare; to make his life one of industrious solitude, and to strain his faculties to the utmost. He thus comes to think more about posterity than about contemporaries; because, while the latter can only lead him astray, posterity forms the majority of the species, and time will gradually bring the discerning few who can appreciate him‥‥ His work is, as it were, a sacred object and the true fruit of his life, and his aim in storing it away for a more discerning posterity will be to make it the property of mankind. An aim like this far surpasses all others, and for it he wears the crown of thorns which is one day to bloom into a wreath of laurel. All his powers are concentrated in the effort to complete and secure his work.

To be honest, Schopenhauer has written very well and I couldn't agree with him more. I'm sure I have no better gorgeous language than him, but I'd like to elaborate from my point of view in my poor language. Like I said in previously chapters, we human beings never have the power over God who could force everyone to do something for him and who would use his magic to control the fate of all people including the ordinary, victims and even the Saviors. Everyone is set to work following God's built-in programs, no exceptions. In the middle and late stages of every pseudo-equilibrium, God would send a Savior to bring mankind to next equilibrium state. “History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” said Mark Twain. This cycle is the rhyme of God. What should we reflect on this cycle? Churchill said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat It!” The Savior was sent by God to save mankind so he/she is fortunate and unfortunate both. Fortunately, unlike the ordinary, he/she is the only sober person in his/her time; unfortunately, he/she has to suffer the sober pain the folks don't have. Ignorance has the advantage of ignorance, while soberness has the cost of soberness. Like the ordinary, the Savior's life is also firmly controlled by three hands: the hand of self-love, the hand of God and the hand of Jupiter.

The hand of self-love

Seen from genes as a fundamental unit, what is predominant quality of a successful gene? Apparently, in a highly competitive world, a predominant quality to be expected in a successful survival machines，is ruthless selfishness, because anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish, otherwise it has long been eliminated. Why do the genes always selfish or ruthless? It is because each gene is competing particularly with its own alleles—rivals for the same chromosomal slot and it faces only two choices: Hunt or be hunted. Universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense. This gene selfishness must give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. At the level of gene, pure altruism never existed in evolution, and sometimes in special circumstances, in order to achieve its own selfish goals best, a gene can foster a limited form of altruism at the level of individual. In general, an apparently altruistic act is one that looks, superficially, as if it must tend to make the altruist more likely (however slightly) to die, and the recipient more likely to survive. It often turns out on closer inspection that acts of apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise. All in all, any altruistic behavior at the individual level is manipulated by selfish genes, and the first principle in evolution is self-love. No doubt Saviors as successful individuals are selfish and driven by self-love of course, because each Savior is competing particularly with some fallacy for a certain field, and similarly, he/she faces only two choices: Hunt or be hunted. I need to completely eliminate the cult of G-spot.

Only selfish rebel can make the world better and better because men pursuing their own self-interest will generate benefits for society as a whole. This is the major contribution of Adam Smith who believes if you are seeking self-interest, if you choose it rationally, this will be in the common good. Which is best for you is also the best for society. Government should not repress self‐interested people, for self‐interest is a rich natural resource. People would be fools and nations would be impoverished if they depended on charity and altruism. Some people are destined to change history. The key question is who? Each Savior must be from the loser side. For example, God is destined to make a woman debunk the deception of vagina orgasm because the truth accords with her interests as well. As Schopenhauer said, I have a double intellect, one for myself and the service of my will; the other for the world. Why should I try to expose the truth to save women? It is because I have common interests with women. In other way, the fool makes 'cruel bind' on the Savior. If I were a man, I would not serve the interests of women because our interests are conflicting. I may lie when it's good for me, but I won't tell a lie when it is bad for me. Everything is doomed. Identity decides fate, and then fate decides character. My thoughts form my idea, and I only act out of my instincts. Those who can change the world will never act against their own interests. I have to fight for the right to my orgasm. Any Savior should be acting out of self-interest in order to achieve the common good. In my view, a true Savior is the one who fight for himself/her instead of others. Those people who claims that they fight for the benefit of others or the public are not real Saviors. As Adam Smith put it: “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those affected to trade for the public good.” Any slogan for the sake of others is just for “profiteering” at the expense of the public in disguise. Only the strategy of “Tit for tat” can regulate the conflict of the self-interested actors on the marketplace back to the equilibrium. For each man, out to do his best for himself with no thought of social consequences, is faced with a flock of similarly motivated individuals who are engaged in exactly the same pursuit. Only the selfish motives of men are transmuted by interaction to yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony. For example, after monogamy, the father opted to withdraw from his daughter's rearing. Again, self-interest will step in to right the balance, and woman's price will again rise up to normal. The complex irrational world is thus reduced to a kind of rational scheme where human particles are magnetized in a simple polarity toward profit and away from loss. Yet no one has issued a dictum, and no planning authority has established schedules of output. Self-interest and competition, acting one against the other, have accomplished the transition. If profits in one line of business are unduly large, there will be a rush of other businessmen into that field until competition has lowered surpluses. Conversely, if profits or wages are too low in one trade area, there will be an exodus of capital and labor until the supply is better adjusted to the demand. Like in market system, self-love also provides self-regulating system for the orderly evolution of society. Note “self-regulating.” The beautiful consequence of the society is that it is its own guardian. If any unbalance strays away from social equilibrium, forces are set into motion to bring them back to the fold. The Saviors must be selfish because they face not only shameless liars but also ignorant fools, and only self-love can strike a new balance. No doubt, self-love is deep-seated first law in human evolution. Human evolved because there was a concealed dynamic beneath the surface of things which powered the social whole like an enormous engine. I agree with Bernard Mandeville who said, “Private immorality may redound to the public welfare, whereas private uprightness may be a social burden.” Indeed, I have no morals because I don't want to be exploited for free, and I am a realist people. Not only am I selfish, but I also awaken the self-love of the victims. Obviously, I need the assistance of others. I am a Smithian, I don't want friends, I don't want anybody who does not see an advantage in interacting with me. I need people acting out of self-interest. Good relationships are always based on self-interest. In short, I need smart allies with a common interest.

So, who has common interests with me? Apparently, I share the interests of all women, but they are so foolish and naive that they are useless to me. After 2012, my unrealistic fantasies about women were completely shattered. Any others besides women? I think I should make alliances with all men, both sellers and buyers. Let me explain one by one. First, for sellers, I need to make alliances with girls' fathers, especially those fathers who have power and money both and love daughters very much, who will also be the beneficiaries of the truth because their sons are also qualified clients and the truth can benefit their daughters as well. Such as, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Obama, President Xi, David Beckham, Kobe Bryant, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone, Edison Chen, Mark Zuckerberg and so on. I don't need you to do any for me, I just need you to do something for your daughter. Even in violent civilization, rational fathers can make their daughters no longer the losers of violent civilization by injecting their daughters with androgens. Look at the sports game, projects that rely on speed and strength are gradually eliminating the inferior estrogen, and more and more people with XX chromosomes begin to arbitrage in women's competitions by injecting male hormones. As a counter-strategy, the IAAF introduced new regulation for female athletes with “difference of sexual development” (DSD) that athlete must use medication to reduce their blood testosterone level to below 5nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six months. To be honest, the IAAF level of 5nmol/L is still high for female levels, which normally range from 0.1 - 1.8nmol/L. Because in muscle civilization the female gene is doomed to be a strictly dominated gene, it is doomed to be eliminated, based on the lesson 1, Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. In just concluded 2019 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup, the head coach of the China women's national volleyball team named Lang Ping often said during time out, “Be a little fiercer.” Obviously, female characteristics, such as gentleness and submissiveness, were first eliminated by successful female athletes. As long as they want to win, they must be fierce as men. To be frank, female mammals are really second sex. I speculate that with the popularity of male hormones, women's competitions will disappear one day. Let's arbitrage crazily! Second, for buyers, I need to make alliances with all men who would like to pay for standard sexual services as same as Thai Massage. Like the fundamental purpose of the abolition of slavery at that year was to make slaves cheaper, now the truth between sexes is also going to make women cheaper. Lies between sexes, including love and female orgasm, can benefit men in the 20th century, but now in this century, the truth can make men spend less money to sleep with more women because love is more expensive than prostitution for men now. You find that the people who eat the 10$ rice are all men, while the people who line up to drink the 20 $ milky tea are all women. Why? When love is tied to luxury goods, men have become losers in love, while businesses and women have become winners. Recently, there is a paper published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, named Foodie Calls: When Women Date Men for a Free Meal (Rather Than a Relationship) which told us a cruel and conservative truth that a foodie call occurs when a person, despite a lack of romantic attraction to a suitor, chooses to go on a date to receive a free meal, and they found 23–33% of women surveyed had engaged in a foodie call. In my view, the one-third figure is much more conservative, and the real number is far greater than 33%. As a woman, I've had some blind dates too. To be honest, I didn't resist these dates until I realized my identity because I wouldn't lose anything in this dating but I can get a free meal at least. After I started reading and writing, I resisted this kind of dating because I had a high time cost. Apparently, under love patten, men started to be exploited by women. Of course, this deception is not limited to food, including bags, necklaces, clothes and other luxury goods. To put it another way, more and more women start to take advantage of love by measuring men's love with money. Under the shield of love, women ask men to give and compromise unconditionally. The law can protect property but not love. Men are always faced with the dilemma that sunk costs cannot be recovered. Not only that, women also cheat in marriage in the name of pursuing love. In the past, men cheated women, but now, men unite with women to cheat men who want to get married. In the 20^th century, men were the exploiting class and women were the exploited class, but in the 21^st century, men become exploited class and women become exploited class. To put it another way, the pursuit of love becomes a man's dominated strategy nowadays, so rational men choose to abandon this dominated strategy as soon as possible. Natural selection would severely penalize such act of pursuing love in males and indeed would favour males who paid directly for sex-services in Pattaya. As a counter-strategy, men don't want to pursue girls anymore because there is too much uncertainty in the process of pursuing and they can't see the schedule. Moreover, a special marriage fraud group has evolved. I can often see such news that Vietnamese brides fled in mass after 10 days of marriage. Bride-price and female freedom of divorce are incompatible. In brief, nowadays, men spend too much and get little in return. The low marriage rate shows that the relationship between the two sexes has been in a dilemma, and one side who invests sunk costs falls into passivity. In next equilibrium, whoring must be standardized and legalized. In women's eyes, perfect love and one-woman kinda man do not exist at all. There are only two men in the world: Cheating men who are found and cheating men who are not found. That is the human nature that men can't win because cheating can make men better off. Like I said before, love and sex are totally two different things. In my view, South Korean "N-room" incident is a very normal thing in the male dominated world, and orgasm is the only result of a form of sexual bullying and abuse, including humiliation and disrespect, which is the essence of sex. Love is restraint, giving, sacrificing and communism, but sex is release, taking, getting. Communism is always unstable, but selfish capitalism is stable. There is only one kind of man who does not cheat: whose opportunity cost of his cheating is higher than the profit of his cheating. After the truth was revealed, rich men can get rid of the shackles of morality and the bad name of the scumbags, while poor men can also obtain sexual satisfaction by trading with women who charges less because she has a lower opportunity cost, without fear of extortion by cops. In short, love, as a kind of deception, is no longer useful to men, and on the contrary, the truth is useful to men now. Love has become a man's negative equity which must choose to abandon it. I do believe that men will give in for their own benefit just as slave owners did for themselves at that time. Do not expect any benevolence from evolution. In essence, prostitution is a kind of sharing economy as same as car sharing and bicycle sharing, which is the best strategy to solve the problem of poor people's consumption. What we should concern is that lack of government oversight will lead to serious abuses of both buyers and sellers in the sharing economy. By the way, this phenomenon of cheat is more serious in lesbians, because many lesbians don't have male ability to ejaculate but have the heart for whoring. Frankly speaking, there is no balance in the relationship between lesbians so far because there is no real product or service transaction between them. I will discuss the issue of homosexuality in the following chapters.

Saviors and dictators are two very important pieces in God's plan, and then what are similarities and differences between them? About similarities, both of them act in their own interests and try to prevent the impact of disordered society on orderly society. About differences, first of all, dictators are used to maintain a pseudo-equilibrium against degeneration before human beings have the ability to get a superior equilibrium, while Saviors are used to guide people to a superior equilibrium after our human beings have the ability to get it. Secondly, strategically speaking, dictators generally resort to lies like altruism to maintain a pseudo-equilibrium, while Saviors resort to the truth like self-love to break the pseudo-equilibrium. Thirdly, one of the most striking psychological characteristics is, for dictator he wants to live forever because he is a beneficiary of pseudo-equilibrium, but for Savior he wants to die from his heart because he knows the truth will only be accepted by the public after his death. The dictator was sprayed on the altar while he was alive, and the Savior was put on the altar after his death. In short, in the evolution of step-by-step human beings, the dictators act in the opposite direction, while the Savior acts in the positive direction. Human evolution needs well-balanced backward and forward.

The Savior was born to challenge so-called authority. This authority in Pseudo-equilibrium includes legal-rational authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority. Legal-rational authority is a system in which people believe that some acts are legitimate and taken for granted, viewed as sacred and inviolable. For example, before Copernicus, people took it for granted that the earth was the center; before Newton, people took it for granted that the apple fell to the ground; so far people still believe P-V model as sacred and inviolable because God chose it. Folks take everything for granted. In fact, nothing is sacred in evolution. The key question is what legal-rational authority is and who can judge what is the authority. That every privileged group – people in position of power – are developing a myth of their superiority. They are developing a myth that this is useful for you to obey. The essence of legitimacy, that is has a certain – expects you to believe in the reasons what those in position of power try to justify their power, but also an understanding that this is a myth. You just internalize your own submission to the authority. What makes the ruler legitimate that the ruler is capable to develop mythologies to justify that you better obey the orders, what is given to you. Because you have some self-interest to do so, and you have some level of belief that it is actually not bad for you to do what the ruler wants you to do. No doubt, no questions, only silence. Traditional authority is a system that people's behavior has some viscidity. For example, so far women are still required to enter marriage by their parents because marriage is still viewed as the traditional destination of women. Charismatic authority is the most complex, and it refers to a person who has some extraordinary and unusual characters, who is actually viewed as superhuman. In theological definition, charisma refers to the quality of an individual that is superhuman. The term charisma will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least exceptional powers or qualities. In general, someone is regarded as semi-god, or the embodiment of God, or an exemplary being who has some exceptional abilities, exceptional qualities who have some very personal and exclusive relationship to God, can talk to God, and they can interpret God's will to the people. Charisma refers rather to the great founders of great world religions. Charming leaders must create miracles. No doubt that dictators and saviors both have charismatic authorities. That is how in communism charismatic leaders like Lenin or Mao or Castro emerged. These were all societies in deep trouble, after humiliations after wars, in big need for some major structural change, and they were looking for a savior, who will solve their irresolvable problems and will lead out to paradise. To be frank, dictators who are not ordinary people are good at making up such Utopian lies to cater to the masses. The so-called charm is created by followers. Those who follow the charismatic leaders are usually seen as followers or disciples, who have some extraordinary commitment to this leader, and this leader creates excitement in them. The dictator's mission determines that the dictator must create some general-will to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium, which determines that his followers are the contemporary public. In other words, dictators are regarded as charismatic leaders when they are alive. On the contrary, the Savior have no such luck because they are destined to save future generations. In other words, the Saviors are regarded as charismatic leaders only after his death. In short, Saviors are people who use their charismatic authorities to help society to transition from outdated traditional authority or legal authority to new one. The big change must occur from this transition, and in order to complete it, we need charismatic leaders. In short, human being always need a savior at any time.

The Saviors are such people with strong self-consciousness, questioning the legal-rational authority and violating the traditional authority, so they are doomed not to be controlled by the general-will in which the Savior cannot be born. God created them for the purpose of spanning a new dimension, and the Saviors is never going to cater to the public, so they can never be born from general elections. For example, I am acting out of my self-conscience instead of an outdated traditional authority. Even my mother pressed me with her life, I would not compromise on marriage. I don't want to lose her, but I can lose her. I admit I have a coldness of rationalism, so do other Saviors. I know I should not be led by sentiments and I have to proceed without passion and without prejudices. We are often regarded as people with heart of stone by their contemporaries. I don't like people, but I know they don't like me. In the eyes of the public, the Saviors are different, uncooperative, numb, cold-blooded, and selfish beings who only care about their own interests, but in fact that is the only way we will ever distinguish ourselves. In the process of communicating with the public, I often don't get a pleasant result, and I need to work hard or hide my ideas in order to communicate normally with others, but I have a tendency to expedite information flow by being direct. In fact, the public has a serious misunderstanding of the Saviors who are with hard heads and soft hearts. They are not indifferent and unloved people, nor am I, but we just oppose the goodness of low IQ because selfish-love only can lead to the next equilibrium. I am a very realistic idealist so I choose to warm the world with cool reason. I know it's time to debunk myth of female orgasm and demonstrate that a new age of human beings has begun. It's not easy being a Savior. It is ironic that the Saviors themselves receive so much virulent criticism in their own time. Altruists accuse them of being too selfish, and many critics vilify modern them for assuming only selfish motives, for caring only about self-love, and for ignoring man's more noble side. The Savior is, they declare, a moral dwarf. Poor Malthus was the best abused man of his age because he was a man who defended small-pox, slavery, and child-murder. Malthus's position was not so much a hardhearted as a supremely logical one. But logic does not always win popularity, and someone who points out the gloomy end of society can hardly expect to gain popular esteem. Similarly, I am going to be the best abused man of my age because I am the one who defend female infanticide, birth control and anti-equal rights. My theory is not so much a hardhearted as a supremely logical one. It is not surprising that I will be regarded as beyond the pale of decent-thinking people. The Saviors are often criticized for giving the cruel truth to the public. Short sighted charity can indeed save a girl, but it also puts the girl in a more miserable situation, so such charity is actually more cruel and stupid in disguise. To dictators, Saviors are party poopers who will debunk some Utopian scam and won't let them promise prosperity without sacrifice. A measure of intellect far surpassing the ordinary, is as unnatural as it is abnormal in the ordinary's eyes. I suppose that my philosophy is comfortless because I speak the truth, and people prefer to be assured that everything the Lord has made is good, fair and prefect. For example, because P-V mode is chosen by God, women instinctively believe that this mode of reproduction will bring women the same benefits as men. In the eyes of crows, swans are guilty. Saviors feel wrongly accused, however, for they are usually not the cause of bad news but simply the messengers. And the message is simple: Human beings must make difficult choices. We are no longer in Eden, orgasm together, like Communism, will never come, at any time people must face trade-offs. We find it difficult to recognize the “good times” even when we have them. Unfortunately, the world does not admire the Saviors for their truth because the truth is always cruel. Compared with the cruel and powerless reality, the public prefers to live in a utopian dream. Utopian theory gives us a model too perfect unrealistic and romantic for the real world, and the task of the Saviors is to shatter human dreams one by one and bring people down to earth by every revelation. Social sciences evolve, just like natural sciences, by getting rid of prejudices and dogmas, to moving beyond dogmas, and substitute them with the study of facts. Don't start with big words, start with actual analysis and find theory when you already have a scientific idea. In order to rationalize the world, you have to get rid of authority. The world becomes rationalized. You have to believe in me, because I am with God, offering you hope in a hopeless situation. Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) said, “If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.” Those very few and rare persons who have the courage to say: No! it is too good for that; my head shall be active only in its own service; it shall try to comprehend the wondrous and varied spectacle of this world, and then reproduce it in some form. There will always be a sharp line of demarcation between them and the millions. Like Schopenhauer said, a Savior has a double intellect, one for himself/herself and the service of his/her interest; the other for the world and future generations. The normal man has only a single intellect, which may be called subjective by contrast with the objective intellect of Saviors. However acute this subjective intellect may be—and it exists in very various degrees of perfection—it is never on the same level with the double intellect of Saviors. At the same time, it is obvious that a double intellect like this must, as a rule, obstruct the service of the general-will. And what specially characterizes Saviors is that it has a kind of cold objectivity which never can be found in the ordinary simple intellect. As a Taurus, I am a typical realistic, practical and down-to-earth person. A man endowed with great mental gifts leads, apart from the individual life common to all, a second life, purely of the intellect. The Saviors devote their self to the constant increase, rectification and extension, not of mere learning, but of real systematic knowledge and insight; and remains untouched by the stupid masses. It is thus a life which raises a man and sets him above fate and its changes. Always thinking, learning, experimenting, practicing his knowledge, the man soon comes to look upon this second life as the chief mode of existence, and his merely personal life as something subordinate, serving only to advance ends higher than itself. Never let anything disturb me in the pursuit of our intellectual life, however much the storm of the world may invade and agitate our personal environment. The Saviors have purely intellectual life of the individual, which transcends their whole era. This intellectual life, like some gift from heaven, hovers over the stir and movement of the world. It is from them that humanity may look for most instruction; for the deepest insight into the most important matters is to be acquired, not by an observant attention to detail, but by a close study of things as a whole. Thus, Saviors may be defined as an eminently clear consciousness of things in general, and therefore, also of that which is opposed to them, namely, one's own self. Only when the Savior dabbles in all aspects of knowledge can he grasp accurately on the things as a whole because everything is interrelated. In the process of innovation, I need to use a variety of knowledge and functions. To borrow the words from Keynes:

The study of economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not . . . a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy or pure science? An easy subject, at which very few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician.

Similarly, the Saviors must be generalists. In their lives, they always keep thinking, learning, experimenting, practicing knowledge. In general, a Savior must be economist, mathematician, chemist, biologist, historian, statesman, philosopher, evolutionist—in some degree. When Saviors are trying to explain how to trade, they are economists, and like all economists, they study the supply and demand curve and how to change; when they are trying to explain how society leap step by step, they are chemists, and like all chemists, they study the electronic transition problem; when they are trying to explain the importance of threshold, they are biologist, and like all chemists, they study the protective role of thresholds in nerve conduction; when they are trying to explain the inevitability of history, they are historian, and like all historians, they study why history does not permit vacuum; when they are trying to explain the fate, they are philosophers, and like all philosophers, they study the fatalism; when they are trying to explain how human society evolves, they are evolutionist, like all evolutionists, they study the game between strategy and counter-strategy. I will apply all thinking to my daily life. I have to say that in the course of the growth of the Savior, the study of economics can teach you a systematic, disciplined way of thinking that will serve you well, which is the most important for Saviors who are doomed to find the next equilibrium for our human beings. Systematic study of Economics is an indispensable tool if the distraction of everyday life is to be pierced and its underlying mechanism understood. Any Savior should be the greater mind of the breadth and the depth, he should be a rare combination of gifts. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. They have to stand on the shoulders of my predecessors. In short, the Saviors are those people who have clear consciousness of things in general and search for totality and periodicity by the unity of subject and object, macro and micro.

Because the Saviors are not understood by their contemporaries, they are lonely almost all their lives. Like Schopenhauer said, “Be lonely or be vulgar.” Obviously, the Saviors choose the former. What is the essence of a person's life? The essence of life is the collection or aggregation or set of all time. To be frank, no more things than time treat everyone equal. Everyone has only 24 hours a day whatever you are a genius or a fool. Apparently, life for any individual is limited, that is, time is limited too. Everyone has only one lifetime, and there is no going back for anyone. Like the limitations of money, the greatest attribute of time is exclusiveness and irreversibility. For any limited scarce resources, we must face constraints and make trade-offs between working and leisure, or working now (and earning an immediate income) and continued education (and the hope of earning a higher future income), or raising children and promoting yourself. How you need to think about what something or someone is worth, whether you should invest your money (time and energy). Basically, a rational being manages his time according to the Four Quadrants of Time Management: Everything I do in life can be classified by its urgency (Urgent or Not Urgent) and by its importance (Important or Not Important). Additionally, the urgency and importance can change from time to time. For example, at the beginning of the game of Plants vs. Zombies, the sunflower is always in the quadrant of important and urgent, but over time, it becomes less important and less urgent, and peashooter becomes more and more important and urgent, and I will replace sunflowers with peashooters totally when the sun is enough. Form the list of pluses and minuses, and a rational person is always weighing the pros and cons based on the principle of marking to the market. Probably no trade-off is more obvious or more important in a person's life than the trade-off between work and leisure. The more hours you spend working, the fewer hours you have leisure. For anyone, the time and energy are about same, but it is very different in how to allocate them for each individual. You can spend all of them studying, or working, or playing games, or in love with someone, or divide them among many fields. When they choose to spend one minute on one thing, they have one less minute to spend on some other thing because of the limitation of your life time. Apparently, the Saviors and the crowed have the opposite choices. What make them make the opposite choices? Different opportunity costs let them to make different choices. Another of the Ten Principles of Economics is that the cost of something is what you give up to get it. What do you give up to get an hour of leisure? You give up an hour of work, which in turn means an hour of wages. Thus, if your wage is $15 per hour, the opportunity cost of an hour of leisure is $15. And when you get a raise to $20 per hour, the opportunity cost of enjoying leisure goes up. Animals face the same trade-offs, and the cost of wasting time may be paramount. Frankly speaking, money, time and energy are all limited for any person so we must face trade-offs rationally and everyone should make rational choices according to his/her opportunity cost. Similarly, the theory of opportunity cost also applies to individual animals. Why do some animals choose to live alone and some choose to live in groups? The only answer is self-interest. When the net profit of staying in a group is greater than that of alone, the animal must choose staying in a group; when the net profit of staying in a group is less than that of being alone, the animal must choose being alone. Did you find an interesting phenomenon that the strong like to live alone and the weak like to live in groups? It is so obvious that Tyson was reluctant to align with me in a violent civilization because I am useless to him. The opportunity cost is the only reason why smart people like to be alone in contract civilization. Schopenhauer said men of genius are generally unsociable and repellent. Here I want to defend the Saviors for a little bit. I am not unwilling to communicate with others, but unable to communicate with others. Different identities determine that we live in different dimensions and have opposite cognition of the world, which determines that I cannot communicate with ordinary people. I am not a social person and not gifted with a silver tongue. I also like to be alone because I find the society is so unsatisfactory and the world is immersed in evil: Barbarians kill each other and civilized people deceive each other. On one hand, I can't wake up the suckers; on the other hand, I can't be a cheater because of initial endowment, so solitude is my best strategy. Loneliness is actually a person's best value-added period, and almost all great theories and ideas are the product of the Saviors' solitude because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. From ancient times, loneliness and greatness are twin sisters. Solitude is a process of inner integration, which can make oneself see the world soberly, which can also make him/her see himself/herself rationally. They know that the source of true values is not in external things but in human hearts. This is the transcendent power of solitude, those seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. So, no wilderness, no revelations. Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude. This forlornness is the high point of freedom. The same calling sent me off to lonely mountain tops. Only ordinary people fear solitude, and for the Saviors, solitude is the best friend because they need to keep a distance between the unreasonable people around them in order to keep rational. The Saviors have few friends because they are ahead of their time for a hundred years and no contemporary can read them. In the eyes of the public, there is no difference between Saviors and madmen because their isolated personality was impenetrable and no one knew what they thought about anything. Their thoughts get better and better over time, and of course, in this process, their ideas can't be mature without books, meditation, reflection, and accumulation. If you want to fly, give up everything that weights you down, so I am a minimalist. I know I have to walk alone in my life, and this is not loneliness but choice. Loneliness is carnival to one while carnival is loneliness to all. It is loneliness that makes me different, not gregariousness. The detachment seems to have been with me always. There are no pockets in a shroud. My time, energy and money are all limited, so I must optimize the allocation of resources. I refuse to sell my time and energy at a price less than the cost, and I am using my time and energy for another purpose. Writing was the primary activity in my life. Arthur Schopenhauer ever said, “Ordinary people merely think how they shall spend their time; a man of talent tries to use it.” Any time spent in doing other things than attempting to span next dimension may be regarded as time wasted from the Savior's point of view. As Steve Jobs said, “Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” You need a strong heart to live a different life from others. Most Saviors refused to enter into marriage because it occupied a large proportion of his time, attention and energy, but they had other more important things to do. Like I said before, the public's love is worthless because they have little opportunity cost. So is the reproduction. Those people who have lower opportunity cost choose to enter the reproductive market. Love which belongs virtual axis and reproduction function which belongs to attenuation function(F(x)=1/2^x_,and F(x+2) equivalent to F(x) when x goes to infinity) cannot last forever, but the Saviors are not interested in what cannot be eternal. Short-sighted people only take the short-run interests into account, and far-sighted people will strike a balance between short-run interests and long-term interests. Unlike them either, the Saviors is going to take the interests after death into his/her account because he/she has but they don't have. I know my life has not only helpless at present, but also poetry and praise after my death. The Saviors also have no altruism but strong selves, and reason tells them what to do and when to do. As an absolutely rational individual, what I pursue is to maximize my profit instead of my incomes. They discount future benefits after death to the present and then make a trade-off. For example, in billiards like world snooker, ordinary players like me only consider how to pot a red ball, and master players like professional players consider not only how to pot a red ball but also how to control the cueball to right position for next color ball, and genius like Ronnie O'Sullivan maybe consider the last hit and how to get 147. Why don't I consider 147? The only reason is that I probably couldn't even hit the first red ball. Identity and calling determine that the Saviors need to walk alone without any friend or understanding. For the Saviors, to consider the decision to fulfill the calling that God has given to them is the first priority. They have two roles: One is to develop and test theories to explain the world around them; the other is to use their theories to help change the world for the better. The main benefits are the immortal reputation after death. I know I can engrave my name on the pillar of honor in history, and instead, some people's names and doctrines will also be removed from the honor pillar. To be honest, I am sure not too many people can remember who put forward the geocentric theory now. But what are the costs? It is the Saviors must suffer the pain that they can't get the public's understanding in the whole life. This is the trade-off the Saviors face, and I know I can't get them both in my life. This is the trade between the Savior and the Creator. He expends his whole life's time and energy to bring human beings into the next equilibrium state in exchange for an eternal reputation. For saviors, in order to fulfill the calling, they have to give up the secular life, namely, secular happiness. The mission of these great minds is to guide mankind over the sea of error to the haven of truth — to draw it forth from the dark abysses of a barbarous vulgarity up into the light of culture and refinement. Identity determines fate, and destiny determines character, not on the contrary. And their only problem will be to shape a destiny worthy of them in a mediocre world. Moreover, the public don't like them, and, what's more, they don't like the public either. They walked through life as if they had descended from another world, and the goings-on that appeared so natural to the eyes of his contemporaries appeared to him as piquant, exotic, and curious as the rituals of a savage community to the eye of an anthropologist. In the bustling, boosting, gregarious community in which they lived, they stood apart: uninvolved, unentangled, remote, aloof, disinterested, a stranger. Because they were strangers, they were nonconformists, but not radical. The world was uncomfortable and forbidding; they adapted to it as missionary might to a land of primitives, refusing to go native, but preserving his integrity at the cost of frightful solitude. My examination of society is merciless. But its biting quality comes not so much from a wish to disparage as from the peculiar coldness with which people's fondest notions are appraised. Genius has three characteristics: 1. Brilliant brain, 2. Ruthless soul, 3. Strong endurance. Greatness comes from tolerance. In my general life, I like to smile and silence because smile can solve many problems and silence can avoid many problems. I know I can't be happy in my life, and as a rational egoist, I am willing to make later generations happier through my lifelong struggle. If women in a hundred years won't be a sex slaves, my soul will be comforted in heaven. Schopenhauer was lucky because he found consolation in the words of Petrarch, “If anyone who wanders all day arrives towards evening, it is enough.” If I also can arrive at last, and will have the satisfaction at the end of my life of seeing the beginning of my influence, it is with the hope that, according to an old rule, it will last the longer in proportion to the lateness of its beginning. I have seen my end in Schopenhauer's words:

This lamentable death of the critical faculty is not less obvious in the case of science, as is shown by the tenacious life of false and disproved theories. If they are once accepted, they may go on bidding defiance to truth for fifty or even a hundred years and more, as stable as an iron pier in the midst of the waves. The Ptolemaic system was still held a century after Copernicus had promulgated his theory. Bacon, Descartes and Locke made their way extremely slowly and only after a long time; as the reader may see by d'Alembert's celebrated Preface to the Encyclopedia. Newton was not more successful; and this is sufficiently proved by the bitterness and contempt with which Leibnitz attacked his theory of gravitation in the controversy with Clarke. Although Newton lived for almost forty years after the appearance of the Principia, his teaching was, when he died, only to some extent accepted in his own country, whilst outside England he counted scarcely twenty adherents; if we may believe the introductory note to Voltaire's exposition of his theory. It was, indeed, chiefly owing to this treatise of Voltaire's that the system became known in France nearly twenty years after Newton's death. Until then a firm, resolute, and patriotic stand was made by the Cartesian Vortices; whilst only forty years previously, this same Cartesian philosophy had been forbidden in the French schools; and now in turn d'Agnesseau, the Chancellor, refused Voltaire the Imprimatur for his treatise on the Newtonian doctrine. On the other hand, in our day Newton's absurd theory of color still completely holds the field, forty years after the publication of Goethe's. Hume, too, was disregarded up to his fiftieth year, though he began very early and wrote in a thoroughly popular style. And Kant, in spite of having written and talked all his life long, did not become a famous man until he was sixty…. Artists and poets have, to be sure, more chance than thinkers, because their public is at least a hundred times as large. Still, what was thought of Beethoven and Mozart during their lives? what of Dante? what even of Shakespeare? If the latter's contemporaries had in any way recognized his worth, at least one good and accredited portrait of him would have come down to us from an age when the art of painting flourished; whereas we possess only some very doubtful pictures, a bad copperplate, and a still worse bust on his tomb. And in like manner, if he had been duly honored, specimens of his handwriting would have been preserved to us by the hundred, instead of being confined, as is the case, to the signatures to a few legal documents. The Portuguese are still proud of their only poet Camoens. He lived, however, on alms collected every evening in the street by a black slave whom he had brought with him from the Indies. In time, no doubt, justice will be done everyone; tempo e galant uomo; but it is as late and slow in arriving as in a court of law, and the secret condition of it is that the recipient shall be no longer alive. The precept of Jesus the son of Sirach is faithfully followed: Judge none blessed before his death. He, then, who has produced immortal works, must find comfort by applying to them the words of the Indian myth, that the minutes of life amongst the immortals seem like years of earthly existence; and so, too, that years upon earth are only as the minutes of the immortals…. This lack of critical insight is also shown by the fact that, while in every century the excellent work of earlier time is held in honor, that of its own is misunderstood, and the attention which is its due is given to bad work, such as every decade carries with it only to be the sport of the next. That men are slow to recognize genuine merit when it appears in their own age, also proves that they do not understand or enjoy or really value the long-acknowledged works of genius, which they honor only on the score of authority. The crucial test is the fact that bad work Fichte's philosophy, for example if it wins any reputation, also maintains it for one or two generations; and only when its public is very large does its fall follow sooner…. Now, just as the sun cannot shed its light but to the eye that sees it, nor music sound but to the hearing ear, so the value of all masterly work in art and science is conditioned by the kinship and capacity of the mind to which it speaks. It is only such a mind as this that possesses the magic word to stir and call forth the spirits that lie hidden in great work. To the ordinary mind a masterpiece is a sealed cabinet of mystery, an unfamiliar musical instrument from which the player, however much he may flatter himself, can draw none but confused tones. How different a painting looks when seen in a good light, as compared with some dark corner! Just in the same way, the impression made by a masterpiece varies with the capacity of the mind to understand it.

After look at these ancestors in human history, I have nothing to ask for in my life because I have seen my whole life. Apart from Copernicus, Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Newton, here I need to add another great guy named Gregor Mendel, who established many of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance and remains the acknowledged father of genetics. Here I don't want to explain his theories in detail which belong to the basic knowledge of biology in high school, and instead of this, I'd like to give a brief account of the injustice he suffered in his life as a supplement, and he was not mentioned by Schopenhauer because he was born after Schopenhauer. He did not see the brilliance he had created either, and his findings were rejected during his time and it was several decades after his death that he was credited for his revolutionary discovery. His work was rejected again and again and didn't bring him any fame or success (Breaking news: I just got two rejections from SocArXiv and preprints.org in February, 2021). Mendel first presented his findings at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia in early 1865. His paper on the subject, which was titled Experiments on Plant Hybridization, was published in the society's journal the following year. At the time his work was rejected by the scientific community. Mendel ordered 40 reprints of his paper to send to famous European scientists, including von Marilaun, Kerner, Beijerinck, Boveri, Schleiden, and the Swiss botanist Karl Wilhelm von Nageli. It is said that Mendel had sent his paper to Darwin. Whether Darwin had received Mendel's paper or not is impossible to prove, but the only thing to be sure is that he didn't receive any positive response from so-called authority at his time. The vast significance of Mendel's work was not realized till 1900 when his findings were rediscovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, after Mendel's death and 35 years after the publication of his paper. I feel that my life is a copy of him. I have sent my papers to many famous world-class scientists, but I have not received any positive response either. The experience of these predecessors has given me a little enlightenment: Success needs friends, and, however, great success needs enemies. The universal character of the Savior is that he was rejected by his time because his theory surpasses the cognition of his contemporaries. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The theory of the Savior is subversive, aiming at overturning the old authority, which is bound to damage the interests of the old authority. So-called great expert scholars and experts are only apologists for the existing order. I've realized very clearly that I can't get any positive response from my time. Johannes Kepler said, “I give myself up to divine ecstasy .... My book is written. It will be read either by my contemporaries or by posterity — I care not which. It may well wait a hundred years for a reader, as God has waited 6,000 years for someone to understand His work.” No wonder, then, that his book took hold slowly. The Saviors affect the human society with a long lag. Why did God arrange this? Maybe, God is worried that the Saviors are probably corrupted by fame. Several centuries ago, astronomers debated whether the earth or the sun was at the center of the solar system. It is a simple concept which human takes a long time to grasp, and the Savior is here to end that division. Has it reverted to its mistaken behavior in the 1500s? Evolution is a constant repetition in different time and space. Saviors cannot count on people immediately believing them when they announce a truth. Now it is not surprising that people can disagree about the direction in which truth lies for the same reason neurology is a very young science, and there is still much to be learned. Although the problem of female orgasm has generated much intellectual turmoil over the past century, I want to see that in my life elites can reach a consensus about female orgasm. If all women were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. Drawing on these predecessors, I know I can't see the brilliance I created either because I am a person ahead of my time. I believe myself to be writing a book on human evolutionary theory which will largely revolutionize—not, I suppose at once, but in the course of the next hundred years—the way the world thinks about human evolutionary problems.... I can't expect contemporaries to believe this at the present stage. The work of genius is a sort of gamble, either a masterpiece or rubbish. There is no middle ground. The Savior is both lucky and unlucky. Fortunately, they were chosen by God as preachers. Unfortunately, they are just no more than a piece of God, a very important piece at most. Saviors must be practical. I am no knave. I knew work have to be done and the secular life have to continue. I feel like I need to use a subjunctive mood here, and I guess I'm destined to keep a low profile for the rest of my life, but I am sure I will own a class on the course of Foundation of Modern Social Thought in Yale university, and at that time, the teacher is not going to say, “I am afraid they are all fathers, no mothers among them.” Anyway, like the words inscribed in Stendhal's tombstone, “Il a vécu, il a écrit, il a aimé,” my tombstone will be engraved, “She read, she thought, she wrote, she researched.” If I were alive at 70, I should start writing my autobiography. I want to leave good scripts for the BBC. I like three episodes of Miniseries made by BBC very much.

The hand of God

The emergence of genius is inevitable, but also accidental. Like I said before, in human evolution, the cycle matters a lot. In fact, the emergence of the Savior is inevitable because at the end of each cycle, namely at the end of pseudo equilibrium, God will always send a savior to show the way for the future development of mankind. After the system loses its balance, there must be someone to stand up. We were touching on a period big with the most important changes, changes that would in some measure be decisive of the future fate of mankind. Saviors are the products of their times, a combination of genes and the environment together. Let me put it another way, the Savior is inevitable, who is the Savior is accidental. In my opinion, the explanation for anything in the world is cycle plus probability. Probability is the likelihood that a given outcome will occur. Our interpretation of probability can depend on the nature of the uncertain event, on the beliefs of the people involved, or both. The birth of the Savior also conforms to this Law: The Savior is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration, but sometimes, one-percent inspiration is more important than ninety-nine percent perspiration. The efforts of the Saviors are based on talents that others don't have, but it's also important not to give up. I'll bet I'm not the first woman to get five seconds of shivering, but I'm the first one not to give it up. I agree with what Schopenhauer said that several highly favorable circumstances must combine to produce genius, and this is a very rare event. In my opinion, the birth of the Savior is like the process of winning the lottery, full of uncertainty. For example, there is a lottery in China called Double Color Ball: Players pick six red numbers from 1 to 33 and a single blue ball from a pool of 1 to 16. To win the top prize, a player must match the entire winning line drawn. Let's calculate the winning probability=1/C₃₃⁶*C₁₆¹= 1/17721088. I just make an example, and in fact, the probability of the Savior is far lower than this number. Maybe only the blue ball is the Savior's gene, and the other six red balls are other harsh external conditions. So, the same logic can be applied to the Saviors, like there must be winning numbers in every lottery, but who wins is uncertain, there must be a Savior in every cycle, but who is the one is uncertain. For another example: There must be three basic conditions for combustion: (1) combustibles, such as wood, natural gas, oil, etc.; (2) combustion-supporting gas, such as oxygen etc.; (3) ignition source. When these three elements interact at the same time, combustion will occur. When so many coincidences come together at same time in one person, it is not coincidence but Providence. The Saviors cannot be replicated because they are the results of a combination of internal genes and external harsh environments under their ages. You could find that good education can only make the elite appear, not the genius, because the Savior is a masterpiece of God, not a masterpiece of education.

And, then, in addition to the periodicity and contingency of the birth of the Savior, what other rules can be followed? What kind of nation or country will the Savior be born in? let me put it another way, what are the preferences for the birth of the Savior? The Savior, as a mutation, must have something to do with quantity. The most obvious factor is population: Simply put, countries with more people will, other things equal, have more the Saviors in history. According to this point, I am optimistic about China and India. The advantage of population is obvious, but this is not the full story. The Savior will not be born in a very poor or very rich family. It is because poverty would stop your ability to think and wealth would stop your insight of the nature of society. Like Schopenhauer said, Needy surroundings and poverty produce pain; while, if a man is more than well off, he is bored; accordingly, while the lower classes are engaged in a ceaseless struggle with need, in other words, with pain, the upper carry on a constant and often desperate battle with boredom. Let me explain them one by one. Poor people are so busy living that they have no time to read, think, travel around the world to open mind and write. Undisturbed leisure is a necessary factor for the birth of the Savior. For ordinary people, leisure has no value, and, as Seneca says illiterate leisure is a form of death, a living tomb. But leisure is essential to the creation of the Saviors who need undisturbed leisure for reading, observing, studying, meditating, practicing. The greatest minds of all ages have set the highest value upon undisturbed leisure, as worth exactly as much as the man himself. If these two unnatural circumstances, external, and internal, undisturbed leisure and great intellect, happen to coincide in the same person, it is not only coincidence but destiny. Never let anything disturb them in the pursuit of their intellectual life is what they believe in all their lives. After looking at myself, I have nothing to complain about because not only my age permits me to fulfill my vocation without too much distraction in my own small corner, but I can travel around the world as well although I don't make much money. I have to embrace the times and circumstances I live in because I can't change them, and I shouldn't feel lost and sad because this is my destiny and yours as well. Wealth can give people leisure, but also can make them lose themselves and the insight of human nature. There is an old saying in China, “The poor produce treacherous and the rich develop conscience.” The rich, especially the second or third generation of the rich, whose wealth comes from inheritance (initial endowment), know nothing about the difficulty of making money whose essence is to understand, grasp and manipulate human nature. There is another saying in China, “Wealth does not pass three generation,” which is true in most instances, because the third-generation of rich have already lost the understanding, grasp and manipulation of human nature, thinking of the world and the poor too well. Not only that, but there is a survival segregation between the poor and the rich by living in different spaces, although they live in the same times. Like different electrons should stay in different orbits, people with different opportunity costs and different utility trade-offs should stay in different areas. There is also a Western proverb to describe, “Birds of a feather flock together.” You could easily find that in any country, rich neighborhood and poor neighborhood are always segregated, which is rational and stable strategy because segregation is always a stable and conservative strategy, rational choices only leading to suboptimal result. Just because of this segregation, the third-generation of rich, who grew up surrounded by love, don't know the living and psychological state of the poor at all, and do think that love can solve everything. In fact, there is no love in the world of the poor, but business only. The world of the poor is more realistic because money is more important to the poor. Their purpose of giving birth is not from love, but from the instinct of genes and the need of individual against age. In short, the poor have no leisure to think, while the rich have leisure but have lost the ability to think. Of course, there are many other conditions: for some examples, the first female Savior couldn't be born in the West because the beds there are too soft (embarrassing); in addition to thanking my mother for my growth, I also thank the Chinese one-child policy because as a girl born in the city, I am the beneficiary of the one-child policy at the expense of those girls born in rural area. In the generation of single children, parents pay too much attention and money to education and training because my mother had no other reproductive channel but me and she pinned all her hopes on me. Poor education prevents many gifted girls from reaching their potential. In addition, the growth environment also plays a very important role. Why were so many Saviors born in the 17th and 18th centuries in UK history? Because that times is the barbaric growth initial period of capitalism. Growing up in this cruel age full of blood and lies, you had to use your brain to do anything, which helped the Savior grew and matured from the outside. Now, because of mediocrity and high welfare, the Savior has refused to be born in the West. I am destined to be born in China that is in the most brutal period of initial barbaric growth of capitalism. I find another phenomenon that many saviors were raised by single mothers, which increased the Savior's insight into this cruel society, I think. Everything is fate, doomed.

The Savior is like a new mutant rebel, suddenly appearing at the end of the pseudo-equilibrium where the ordinary people don't think about the essence of things yet and take everything for granted. In short, the ordinary people don't have transcendent. Unlike the ordinary people, the most remarkable characteristic of the Savior is transcendence both physically and mentally. That is why there is no female Savior before me because a person who cannot achieve physical transcendence is not qualified to talk about mental transcendence at all. Women can have outstanding talents, but they are not Saviors, because women don't have transcendence. So far, woman is one of the ordinary people. Like I said before, a person who even can't achieve Physiological needs in first level can't achieve Self-actualization in top level. It is hardly surprising that ordinary people have still not achieved grand Saviors status. All of them subject to the inertia that is pretty deep and real in pseudo-equilibrium, but only Saviors can reject this general-will or group thinking because of extremely lucidity of their minds. They show very deep thoughts which are far more than that of their contemporaries. Witty and even learned people, they are. If we want to evolve, we need the Saviors forever, who are going to reshape and rebuild men's minds because they have unique understandings, extraordinary insight and completely radical revolutionary idea. Each emergence of the Savior in human history means subverting some old rules because their mission is to reset the game according to their own theory. Saviors are destined to turn upside down prevailing thought on externalities that the ordinary people know in a certain field. Those ideas generally recognized to be true by the society may also be lies. Even some ideas that everyone agrees with and often says frequently also can be wrong, for all use arguments that presuppose its truth. The cool thing about the truth is that these incredibly beyond the comprehension of the ordinary's minds. The ordinary people's comprehension is trapped in the original dimension where all the fallacies are linearly dependent. What is linearly dependence? What is linearly independence? What is original dimension? What is new dimension? For example, we can represent a two-dimensional plane with two linearly independent vectors. These two independent vectors span a plane, and any vector in this plane can be represented by a linear combination of these two vectors. If this vector is on that plane, it can be represented as a linear combination of these two vectors. The span of these two vectors equals all the vectors in R². As long as any two vectors are not collinear, they are going to define a kind of two-dimensional space. Even though we have two vectors, but they are essentially collinear, which means they are multiples of each other, we can't span R² with these two vectors. When we have two collinear vectors in R², essentially their span just reduces to a line that there is no way to kind of break out of. We call these two vectors linearly dependent. Linearly dependent just means that one of the vectors in the set can be represented by some combination of the other vectors in the set. Similarly, in order to define R³, a third vector can't be coplanar with those two. If this third vector is coplanar with these two, it is not adding any more directionality, or it is not giving us any new dimension. So, this set of three vectors will also be linearly dependent. At least, one of vectors is not going to add anything to the span of our set of vectors. In order to span R³, the third vector will have to break out of the plane. If a vector is breaking out of that plane, that means it is a vector that cannot be represented anywhere on that plane, so it is outside of the span of those two vectors. Where it is outside, it can't be represented by a linear combination of these two vectors, and then we can think of these three vectors as linearly independent. As I said, everything is interlinked and united, and then how to apply this theory of linear algebra to my theory? Before the Savior appeared, human beings are in the original dimension(R²) where all theories are linearly dependent. For example, at present, all theories and all ideas about female orgasm are linearly dependent. I downloaded a lot of papers written from famous western professors in Springerlink, and I found all of them can reduce to one concept that P-V model is good for women as well. One theory can be represented by a sum of the other ones. In short, human is trapped in the original dimension no matter how many papers they write, and no one's theory can span a new dimension by breaking out of the original dimension. To put it another way, their theories and research results are not transcendent. But, there is a big but here, my theory cannot be represented by a linear combination of their any theory because my theory is adding new directionality. My calling is to add a new dimension to human evolutionary history. In summary, before Saviors, the works of the ordinary are just simple repetitions without transcendence by scaling and adding in the original dimension at most, but only the Saviors can span a new dimension. In addition to the theory of linear algebra, I can also use spectroscopy theory to describe this transcendence. According to Wikipedia, the electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies (the spectrum) of electromagnetic radiation and their respective wavelengths and photon energies. The electromagnetic spectrum covers electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from below one hertz to above 10²⁵ hertz, corresponding to wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atomic nucleus. This frequency range is divided into separate bands, and the electromagnetic waves within each frequency band are called by different names; beginning at the low frequency (long wavelength) end of the spectrum these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays at the high-frequency (short wavelength) end. The visible spectrum is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eyes, for atypical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 380 to 740 nanometers. The vision of the ordinary is always limited, and the mission of the Savior is to constantly expand the vision of human beings to the macro or micro level.

The acid test of science is its ability to predict the future, in particular, hitherto unknown facts. Like Prometheus, the Savior is a prophet of human beings, who is a person with the ability to predict the future, real predictions instead of post-dictions. The prediction of the future includes two aspects: What will happen? And when will it happen? The mission of the Savior is to solve these two problems. The masses have no ability to predict. Lack of understanding of the past and the present, all speculation and prediction are groundless subjective fantasy. I've explained in detail the pattern of human evolution in previous chapters: There is a loop between equilibrium and pseudo equilibrium. Like I said before, any Saviors must be born in a pseudo equilibrium because equilibrium means truth where Saviors are not going to show up. Mainstream western economics is based on equilibrium theory, and every man is an Economic Man. What is an Economic Man? Economic man refers to an idealized human being who acts rationally and with complete knowledge, who seeks to maximize personal utility or satisfaction. Economic man is an assumption of many economic models, and is also known as homo economicus. Economics does not involve irrational person and pseudo equilibrium too much, which is not hard to understand because you can't predict what absurd things an irrational person will do. Using economy to describe the real world is applicable only to equilibrium state, not pseudo equilibrium state. Equilibrium did not hold in pseudo equilibrium state. So, there's a branch of economics called discrimination economics. Equilibrium corresponds to efficient market where there is no arbitrage space and profits exceeding normal returns cannot be realized; pseudo equilibrium state corresponds to weak-form market efficiency or semi-strong-form market efficiency where there is arbitrage space and profits exceeding normal returns can be realized.

The first problem is how to predict what will happen. To be honest, it is not too hard to answer. In my opinion, all pseudo equilibria are based on two points: 1. Irrational participants; 2. Asymmetric information. The former needs time to become more and more pragmatic, while the latter is the task of the Savior to provide the truth (common knowledge) to the public. The future that the Savior predicts is no more than the next equilibrium based on the truth. In the pseudo equilibrium state, the market is irrational. Precisely speaking, there are irrational participants in the market. It is these irrational people who create irrational exuberance and prevent equilibrium achieving. For example, in the number game in Yale's open course of Game Theory, 1 would have been the winning answer, but not actually, because not everyone is rational. As long as one participant is irrational, 1, this equilibrium, cannot be achieved because any irrational decision will also interfere with the formation of the final equilibrium price which is determined by all market participants. In fact, it is asking a lot to get to 1 here. As long as all participants are pretty sophisticated game players and they share the same common knowledge, there is one and only one answer, 1, left in this game. At the beginning of the pseudo-equilibrium state, the choice of 1 is difficult to win because the Savior is the only one who knows the equilibrium of this game is 1. When all people are rational, this game has only one solution. Irrational people are sentimental. People with certain kinds of brain damage may make better investment decisions. That is the conclusion of a new study offering some compelling evidence that mixing emotion with investing can lead to bad outcomes. The study suggests the participants' lack of emotional responsiveness actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game. Some neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing emotional reactions. The more irrational people are, the more they are the favorite of capitalists. This is also the fundamental reason why women are liberated. Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they make decisions? Maybe it is because animal spirits or behavioral inertia. In other words, not all people adjust instantly to changing conditions outside. Some people lag behind. Habit is the second instinct of human beings. “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,”writes Schumpeter,“becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Look though the veil, and don't get all mixed up by the fact that there is illusion. It is the real thing that you want to concentrate on as much as you can. Apply economic thinking to your daily life. The world may never look the same again. Direction is more important than effort. Doing the right things is more important than right doing things. Benjamin Franklin ever said, “you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.” Only interest can break habits. Mainstream economics need not assume that everyone is rational all of the time—instead it assumes that economic forces will, over time, push people and institutions toward more rational behavior. Rational participants looking for a bargain will correct the irrational historical trend, but it needs to take time. If I appeal to interest rather than intellect, I can't persuade them either, and it must be fate or destiny. Their intellect and interest are inconsistent with God's interest, and God concealed their rationality. To put it another way, individual will and genetic will rule human beings alternately. I said it many times that human evolution needs victims because God face the short-run trade-off between victims and degeneration. Under a pseudo-equilibrium state which is full of lies, due to lack of common knowledge and some irrational participants, equilibrium cannot be achieved. The real antagonist in my intellectual life was not cheats but suckers, and it is not a realistic goal to eliminate all victims and all lies at same time given the limits of human knowledge and the inherent defects of human evolution. In short, victims are necessary in human evolutionary road. "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic,” said Dresden James.

The second problem is when it will happen. This question is more difficult to answer than the first one. For example, Soros had predicted that the bull market in US stocks would end in the Reagan term. It turned out that he was right, but a little late. The bear market happened during Reagan's second term. Equilibrium is not hard to predict if you're a rational person. The most difficult thing to predict is the process and time (where it can deviate and when it can reach equilibrium) because every irrational person's participation will change this schedule. Reflexivity in economics is the theory that investors don't base their decisions on reality, but rather on their perceptions of reality instead. The actions that result from these perceptions have an impact on reality, or fundamentals, which then affects investors' perceptions and thus prices. The process is self-reinforcing and tends toward disequilibrium, causing prices to become increasingly detached from reality. The theory of reflexivity has its roots in sociology, but in the world of economics and finance, its primary proponent is George Soros. The idea is centered around there being two realities; objective realities and subjective realities. Objective realities are true regardless of what participants think about them. Subjective realities on the other hand are affected by what participants think about them. Our collective thinking is what moves markets and produces winners and losers. This means that what we think about reality affects reality itself. And that reality in turn affects our thinking once again. Soros argued that financial markets, far from accurately reflecting all the available knowledge, always provide a distorted view of reality, and the degree of distortion may vary from time to time. Sometimes it's quite insignificant, at other times it is quite pronounced. What Soros is saying is that markets are in a constant state of divergence from reality — meaning, prices are always wrong. Soros believes that reflexivity challenges the idea of economic equilibrium because it means prices might deviate from the equilibrium values by a significant amount persistently over time. As evidence for his theory, Soros points to the boom-bust cycle and various episodes of price bubbles followed by price crashes, when it is widely believed that prices deviate strongly from the equilibrium values implied by economic fundamentals. I basically agree with his theory because the participation of irrational people indeed interfere with the market equilibrium striking. Today, under the rampant liberalism, the right of these irrational people to trade freely has been magnified infinitely, which is, of course, a capitalist conspiracy. I have to admit that in the pseudo equilibrium, some people's excessive profits are at the expense of others' excessive loses, but Soros also failed to clarify the specific timetable for the return. In the trading civilization, making money becomes a game that caters to irrational people, not to the rational people. In the number game, it's hard to win in an irrational group. Newton lost a lot of money in stocks as well. In the pseudo equilibrium state, in order to obtain continuous arbitrage and excess returns, vested interest groups must try every means to brainwash the victims. Fooled education or enslavement education is always the dominant strategy under any system. Human exploration of any problem will certainly converge to its truth, but the process is rather bumpy. Human beings are condemned to a perpetual oscillation between truth and lies. Soros ever said, “Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The object is to recognize the trend whose premise is false, ride that trend, and step off before it is discredited.” Drawing on the words from Soros, human history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. My time expresses it incisive that barbarians kill each other and civilized people deceive each other.

What will be, will be, but there are some prerequisites. There is an old saying called, “Man Plans, and God Laughs.” God is really making concessions in its planned way. This may sound crazy, but there is reason to believe that it won't lead you too far astray. God chose the strategy of “Trading space for time.” To put it another way, God uses flexibility to wait for alternatives. So, victims and lies have to exist simultaneously in the pseudo-equilibrium lest human beings should encounter degeneration. Human evolution always has to sacrifice some people, and the key question is to sacrifice who. The absurd very possible each contains an element of truth. During pseudo-equilibrium, people are confused about any imaginary axis. Imaginary axis is a veil, but when the veil flutters, real output sputters. Before we're ready, the veil is the only fig leaf that can't be lifted. Economic equilibrium is a misleading guide to current social affairs. The transition from the short-run pseudo-equilibrium to the long-run equilibrium, human need to prepare a lot in material civilization and spiritual civilization, and people's awakening will work with a long lag. We can regard pseudo-equilibrium as short-run fluctuations in human social evolution. How to judge whether it is long-term or short-term depends on the time horizon. From the perspective of human evolution, pseudo-equilibrium is temporary instead of permanent, but for the individual, it is truly permanent. Keynes said, “the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs because in the long run we are all dead.” Thus, if human want to get a virtuous circle, it must endure a period of confusion. Timing matters a lot. The coming boom, and the coming collapse. We can find God's instructions in the Bible.

His disciples wanted to know when God's Kingdom would come, and they asked Jesus: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus did not give them the exact date, but he told them what would happen just before the end of this world. What Jesus said would happen is happening right now…. In this chapter we will discuss evidence that we are living in the time just before the end of the world. First, we need to learn about a war that took place in heaven so that we can understand why things are so bad here on earth…. The Bible says that it would be a time of trouble for mankind. Why? Because the Devil is very angry, “knowing that he has a short period of time.” The Devil is causing as much trouble as he can on earth. He's furious because he has a short time left before God removes him. Let us examine what Jesus said would happen during the last days…. The prophet Daniel wrote about the last days. He said: “The true knowledge will become abundant.” (Daniel 12:4) God would give his people the ability to understand the Bible more clearly than ever before. Jehovah has done this especially since 1914…. Do you believe that we are living in the last days? Many Bible prophecies about the last days are coming true. Soon Jehovah will decide to stop the preaching of the good news and “the end” will come. (Matthew 24:14) What is the end? It is Armageddon, when God will remove all wickedness. Jehovah will use Jesus and his powerful angels to destroy anyone who refuses to obey Him and his Son. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) After that, Satan and his demons will not mislead people. And all those who want to obey God and accept his Kingdom will see every promise of God come true.—Revelation 20:1-3; 21:3-5…. This world ruled by Satan will soon come to its end…. The apostle Paul explained that the destruction of the wicked will come when most people don't expect it, “as a thief in the night.” (1 Thessalonians 5:2) Jesus prophesied that many would choose to ignore the evidence that we're living in the last days.

The Savior is transcendent, but not omnipotent. Like everyone should be constrained by their budget line in Economics, time and space also constrain human cognitive ability in evolution, including all Saviors. I also have to be constrained by time and space because my mission is to span the next dimension, not all behind. For example, let's say humans are in the 23^rd dimension, and I am only responsible for the 24^th dimension but not for the 25th. Human evolution would be step by step because humankind cannot bear very much reality at one moment. The theory of the greatest Savior is 90 percent right but not 100 percent right. Like the prices at different time points are not comparable in Economics so there is a concept named discount rate, people's cognitive ability is not comparable in different periods. John D. Rockefeller was the richest Americans of all time, but he couldn't watch television, play video games, surf the Internet, send e-mail, enjoy air conditioning or travel by plane. No matter how rich you are, you would be constrained by your times. Because of tremendous technological advances, the average American today is arguably “richer” than the richest American a century ago. Similarly, no matter how smart you are, you would be constrained by your dimension. Because of the progress of the dimension, the ordinary people today see “more” than the Savior a century ago. Are these ordinary people smarter than the Savior a hundred years ago? Of course not. God don't become more generous, and people are just going to accumulate and develop on the existing dimension spanned by predecessors. You're ignorant if you don't respect Saviors because their theories were flawed. This kind of evaluation is unfair and superficial. The primary reason that living standards are higher today than they were a century ago is that technological knowledge has advanced. We are in different dimensions, but the ordinary people today are as stupid as they were five hundred years ago because this is God's script, and by the way our human beings will always need Saviors.

John Stuart Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” in his book Utilitarianism. The meaning of this quote varies based on what makes an individual satisfied or dissatisfied. A fool can be satisfied but he will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus, making him ignorant to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history. This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. I understand what Mill means, but, unfortunately, pigs don't think so. In pigs' eyes, Socrates is an alien, while Socrates doesn't understand the meaning of pig's life. In real lives, the gap between people is even larger than that between people and animals. What makes them different? Like I said before, identity decides fate, and then fate decides thinking, not the other way around. It derives from the different division of labor. To put it another way, God gives the Saviors and the public different identities to achieve his different purposes. Human evolution is a process of continuous division of labor. God does have a division of labor. God faces many decisions. It must decide which one plays which part, and what jobs will be done and who will do them, and what each member gets in return. In short, the God must allocate its scarce resources among all members at any given time, taking into account everyone's abilities, efforts and desires. Natural ability is important for workers in all occupations. Because of heredity and upbringing, people differ in their physical and mental attributes. Some people are born strong, others born weak. Some people are born smart, others less so. Some people are born outgoing, others awkward in social situations. Some people are born with the physical attributes of a movie star; other people are not. People differ in many ways. One difference is in what mission they have. God is also looking for his economies of scale. higher production levels allow specialization among workers, which permits each worker to become better at a specific task. “Jack of all trades, master of none.” This well-known adage helps explain why firms sometimes experience economies of scale. A person who tries to do everything usually ends up doing nothing very well. If a firm wants its workers to be as productive as they can be, it is often best to give each worker a limited task that he or she can master. Indeed, the use of specialization to achieve social of scale is one reason modern societies are as prosperous as they are. Each of us is a piece of God, assigned different roles. Just play your part. The real generosity to the future is to give everything to the present. Each of us just needs to play our part according to God's script. The real generosity to the future is to give everything to the present. This is incidentally good for the group as a whole if each individual learns her place' relative to each other individual. Like Dawkins said in his book, the new soup is the soup of human culture, called meme. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent 'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. As same as a useful mutation gene, memes are working purposefully for their own survival. We can apply the words like 'selfish' and 'ruthless' of genes to memes. Memes must indulge in a kind of competition with each other. If a meme is to dominate the attention of a human brain, it must do so at the expense of 'rival' memes. Apparently, my rival memes are G-spot, vaginal orgasm, orgasm together and utopianism. In the eyes of Saviors, any time spent in doing other things than attempting to create the meme may be regarded as time wasted. Unfortunately, the Savior is responsible for creating memes not for broadcasting memes. The Savior has no interest in things that cannot last forever. This is also the main reason why the Savior is far away from reproduction. Reproduction can't not last forever. Dawkins wrote: “When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We were built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king's genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction. But if you contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G. C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.” Don't follow the crowed, let the crowed follow you. The inheritance of genes from generation to generation is the bounden duty of the public. The history of human thought evolution is a relay race of saviors in different times. Now, it's my turn to run. The process of human evolution is a process of constantly fighting against the old traditions, and these Saviors are born innovators, rebels and dreamers. They do deem that they can change the originally reversed world and reset it according to their own rules. The world never lacks truth, and for example, the earth always revolves around the sun, whether Copernicus appears or not, and, however, the world lacks the brain to discover the truth. Dissatisfied Socrates with a mission was born under this circumstance. What about a satisfied fool? Their deep-rooted bad habit lies in that they take everything for granted. Level determines consciousness. Innumerable things fall down before and may hit the head of many, but no other than Newton wondered why the apple do not fly upwards? P-V model is chosen by God which is definitely normal so they have never questioned this model. Similarly, I'm definitely not the first woman who can use the dorsal root nerve, but so far, no other than me want to figure it out. People are always used to something that we shouldn't be used to, and persist in something that we shouldn't persist in. The peculiar characteristic of the philistine is a dull, dry kind of gravity, akin to that of animals. If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen. The reason why the public can't see the truth is that the truth is often complex and cruel. Even I present the cruel truth to the public, the public can't catch it, if a person doesn't have enough courage and wisdom. The truth is heavy, therefore few care to carry it because humankind cannot bear very much reality at the same time. There is an old idiom like this: In order not to let the road of truth be overcrowded, fate makes most people lose their way. God's plan is to let only a few people in the world see the truth because reason leads to bad results. God has written about the fate of their foolish lives. Cognitive gap is the biggest gap between the ordinary and Saviors. No longer can people at the different cognitive level communicate, which is the only reason why genius and his contemporaries can't communicate. There is no common measure between them. Never argue with people of different levels. It's a useless loss to yourself. It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument, said William G. McAdoo who was an American lawyer and statesman, U.S. secretary of the treasury (1913–18), a founder and chairman (1914) of the Federal Reserve Board. We cannot be too sharp in condemning the absurd notion that geniuses can be born from general elections. The revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively instinctive. Hitler wrote this in his Mein Kampf,“It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved through coalitions (united fronts), owing to the very nature of their source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place in human thought, and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world, would have been inconceivable & impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.” Those people who can see through the nature of things in three seconds must be doomed to have different fates with those who can't see that in their whole lives. The strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission. How to deal with the contradiction between the Savior and the public? Segregation is the best strategy for both sides. Each side does its own thing, and neither side needs to cater to each other. Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Genius can't be friends with the ordinary because friends need to be well-matched in level. Accordingly, the difference between a genius and an ordinary man is a total diversity of world and existence. The Savior is responsible for transcendence, and the public is responsible for balance.

Break the mystery of female orgasm

2021年3月19日星期五

Breaking news

2021年3月12日星期五

Chapter 8: Savior VS Women