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 20th century, men
were the exploiting class and women were the exploited class, but in the 21st
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)=1/2x,
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 23rd dimension, and I am only responsible for the 24th
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.
