语言表达之我见

用语言来表达关系，绝对不比数理逻辑清楚；但是用数理逻辑来表达概念，比用语言烦冗费时得多，所以更难彰显张力。

先谈全称命题和特称命题。全称命题就是所有对象都能满足条件，比如说所有动物都会吃、喝和睡；而特称命题就是只有一部分的对象能满足条件，比如说有些动物会跑，如果要更准确些，可以会继续包括那些动物能跑，而或者如果命题是不确定的，就用概率。

但是用语文表达，除非作者思维很清晰特地去注明，否则通常不会故意指出是特称或全称关系，而让读者去用“常识”或“常理”去明白。这一点，尤其在名言或精句上可以找到，因为名言或精句必须要精简才能让人如饮醍醐，太罗嗦很容易让人兴趣索然。所以名句和精句是非常有针对性的指出一些道理或道理的一部分，不代表道理的全部，也不打算彰显完整的道理（若是的话，就是学术著作了），所以千万不能视之为放诸四海皆准的真理。

譬如说，有一本很出名的书，叫做“细节决定成败”，里面讲述了许多可以决定成败的细节，所以倡导大家应该注意细节。但是仔细想一想，是否所有的细节都可以决定成败呢？引擎的某个小零件坏了，可以导致大爆炸；控制汽车的电子系统程序，一旦程序出错，可以导致意外（指最近丰田汽车意外加速导致不少车祸，需要在全球召回问题车辆的大事），这些细节都可以决定成败。但是有些细节无论是对是错，都是无关痛痒的鸡毛蒜皮，忽略它反而是明智的，譬如说丰田曾经因为停止在车底的喷漆而省下不少成本。如何理解“细节决定成败”这一句，成为关键。看了书的标题后，如果你理解成所有的细节都决定成败，你会凡事都力求做到尽善尽美；如果你理解成大多数的细节能决定成败，你会抓大放小做事更有效率（自然你可以说，这样做也是决定成败，但是这个概念已变成“如何正确处理细节决定成败”。）

就正如用语文表达，我不可能把每一字的内涵与外延都表达得准确无误，这样写文章就成了写律法，字字珠玑是以最少的字句展现最多的内容，简洁美丽却还能大致通情达理。语文表达的准确度与张力，此消彼长，好像鱼与熊掌般不能兼得，也好像量子力学中电子的位置与速度的不确定性。好像扯远了，哈哈。

各打五十大板

在争辩当中，有一种总结我很讨厌，就是无论是非黑白，一概两边各打五十大板，仿佛世上的道理都是灰的，和稀泥地平息两方，不争辩才是好的。

世上不是没有模糊不清的争论，但是单凡争辩就用这招来混，实在是反智，就好象争论一个人是男是女时，你总不能说“好啦好啦，你们各自都有道理”，什么道理？不男不女？（现实中这个是可能的）又好比争论一个人有没有犯罪杀人时，你总不能说“他可能有做，可能没有做”的谬论，对不？这两个都是极端的例子，但道理是一样的。

只要大板一打下来，什么道理都不用讲了，连错误都可以放过了，连谬论都可以扫进地毯下了，这样子争辩来干什么？不要老是说，你这样说有道理，那样说也有道理，道理在哪里？必须说清楚。什么情况下可以作准？什么情况下不可以？如果可以说清楚，那才可以令人信服，不然的话，就只是乱棍一扫通通打翻，什么建设性都没有。

手持这种大板或乱棍的，有许多是自诩为自由主义的人士，好象是唯有变化多端才能算美，孰不知真理就算不能被精准地确立，也不能等同于谬论，就正如自由也不是绝对自由，而是被限定出来的，有个范畴。在这个资讯爆炸的年代，很多人很容易因为不能承受大量讯息的冲击，而倾向于以这样子糟蹋争论，名为自由主义，实为虚无主义，和古代懒得处理案件只会判处两边各打五十大板的昏官，有什么分别？

人与言谈

这个世界好玩的地方就在于，没有邪派的会自认是邪派而陷自己于绝境。这个道理，小学老师就说了，而且说得更清楚，“有小偷会认自己偷东西的吗？”。但是人的善恶不是固定不变的，所以想来想去，就只有这句话派得上用场了 - “不以言举人， 不以人废言”。

所谓不以言举人，就是不要因为一个人善于言谈就推举他。堂而皇之的大道理，有谁不会讲呢？深入浅出的哲理，比较少人能讲，但一个人即使能讲得很清楚，是否能代表他言行一致呢？关键的，是言论显示出来的道理，而不是说道理的人。注重前者，才能吸收精神养分，提升自己的见识与涵养；注重后者，就会逐渐依附于表象，进而生出敬畏和崇拜，反而不利于独立思考。

这个道理容易明白，但是实践起来并不容易。一般朋友之间的是是非非就不说了，古今中外多少伟人的知识，有多少是我们还未接触，就先被威名所震慑而觉得一定全有道理了？不是有这么一句么？伟人之所以伟大，是因为人们跪着看他。

至于不以人废言，则是不要因为一个人的品行不好就全盘否定他的言论。这不但表现出宽大的胸襟，更展示出成熟的理性，只是却更难实践。就好比我们明明知道人不可貌相，却时常抱着第一印象的成见，而忽略去持续观察与注意变化。就算是愚人，千虑也必有一得，以人废言等于闭关自守，对于提升思维又有何用？

虽然我不是佛教徒，但是我觉得羯腊摩经（Kalama Sutra) 的十项准则说得更清楚：

一、不因为他人的口传、传说，就信以为真。
二、不因为奉行传统，就信以为真。
三、不因为是正在流传的消息，就信以为真。
四、不因为是宗教经典书本，就信以为真。
五、不因为根据逻辑，就信以为真。
六、不因为根据哲理，就信以为真。
七、不因为符合常识外在推理，就信以为真。
八、不因为符合自己的预测、见解、观念，就信以为真。
九、不因为演说者的威信，就信以为真。
十、不因为他是导师、大师，就信以为真。

总得来说，就是不要轻信。但是如果什么都可以怀疑，要相信什么呢？相信真、善、美。如果建立相信呢？博学慎思。但针对以上的十项准则，我想加些补充。关于第五项的“逻辑”，诚然逻辑上对的，内容不一定对；但是逻辑上不对的，内容一定有问题。逻辑不能证实内容的真伪，但是却能抓住辩证的漏洞和矛盾，所以学习形式逻辑的知识如同一律、矛盾律、排中律、全称特称、必然条件和充分条件，能帮助厘清思维。

无论怎么说都好，只要懒得动脑筋，而想抄捷径去寻找依赖，就只会离真善美越来越远。我们不得不通过表象来看本质，但是表象与本质的关系，不是那么容易厘清的，更不是永远不变的。

夜谈倾心之总结

晚风习习，促膝长谈，论事议理，人生几何。周六和伟华通宵聊天，交流了不少想法。最近我在读孙子兵法，于兵理事理有更深一层的领会；再加上现时沉浸于两极相生相克的道理，所以许多新奇但兼容的想法交替涌现。

当晚的交谈总结如下：外术与内道孰轻孰重，凝固与变化孰易孰难，欲望与静念孰虚孰实，表象与本质孰假孰真，全因个人学习多寡和志向长短而变化，进而影响析事的范围大小、领悟的速度快慢和悟理的层次高低。然而一切尽在两极变化当中，掌握事物根本，明白万象之圆，才能形成自称一格的学 - 思 - 行 - 教，相通相变。

尤其喜欢学 - 思 - 行 - 教这个循环。学与思的关系，孔子以“学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆”阐明清楚，而知与行之间的互动，更是千古命题，知易行难还是知难行易，先知后行还是先行后知，没有常势，但有知就必须笃行，知而不行宛若不知。至于行与教的关系，大概没有人能否定，以身作则不证自明就是最佳的教育；然后有教就有学，有学才有教，周而复始循环不息。学与思是内心的修行，行与教是对社会的作用，因而一个人要是做好这四门功课，人生自然美满。

信任转移

大约两三年前，读了一本关于老千的书，里面提到算命最常用的招术是：“千、隆、问、屈”。简单来说就是通过说中你的过去赢取你的信任，从而侃侃而谈你未来的命。但仔细想一想，为什么知道你的过去就可以算出你的未来呢？没有必然关系。

但那时的我还没有“信任转移”这个概念，直到最近看书多了，慢慢发觉到，很多论证都是从强而有力的论点A开始，让你觉得头头是道，过后“顺其自然地”过渡到结论B。中间的必然联系呢？一笔带过。而作为读者的我们，很容易地因为相信论点A的确凿，而爱屋及乌地去相信结论B。

为什么信任会如此容易地被转移呢？疑惑中。

差之毫厘

细微之处，有的如四则运算的加减乘除，用错就答案全非；有的如代数的ABCD，再考究也无关痛痒。不是所有细节都能决定成败，什么是隐藏关键，什么是鸡毛蒜皮，不能混淆。判断不了，忽视了重要之处，却为真小事抓狂，结果恐怕很糟糕。

principleSSSS

It is easy to have the whole world to embrace a common set of values and principles. Be good, be nice, be fair, be just, bla bla bla. But it is never easy, or perhaps impossible, to have all of us rationalize and react the same way when principles CLASH against each other.

There are million of circumstances where principle A yields to principle B, and another million of circumstances where principle B yields to principle A. The world is never as simple as it is, or perhaps it makes more sense to put it this way, the world still exists and continues to evolve because it is complex and diversified.

When you realizes this, you starts to feel bored when people keep yelling and shouting for "justice", "freedom", "rights" while spend virtually no time on laying the groundwork of essential knowledge and working on the details of possible directions. Simply hijackers of ideologies and fanatic followers of Utopia where everything is as easy as the simple math: 1+1=2.

Just like any other arenas in life, you could draw enormous attentions when you talk loud and big, but if this is the only thing you could do, expect a immediate backfire and downfall. Words, reveal.

Don't just talk loud, talk how. The world will not move forward even all of us share the same set of values. Such rigidity, is too simple to attain and offers no worth. Flexibility and details in dealing with every occasions, are what really matter.

统战兵卒

我们都不过是各种意识形态统独之战的兵卒，任意地被权力话语差遣去复述征战。很少人乐意成为兵卒，但却总有一撮人自愿当兵卒，为的不是探讨意识形态之间的优劣好坏，而是为了冲到底线成王挂帅，从被差遣到差遣人。

经验之用

经验，不一定能结出智慧的果实，却经常衍生出顽执的杂草。它仅仅让我们知道怎么做，而不能教会我们怎么变通。要变通，需要更进一步去探索为什么可以这么做。因为当环境和成因一变，知其然而不知其所以然，就算知得再多，仍会威严尽失，成为没落的糟粕。

我们当然要先知道怎么做，但这不是终点，而只是起步。投入的时间，不一定长出经验；投入的经验，不一定长出智慧。在大多数的情况下，我们尊重经验，是因为它仍是智慧的，若它成了吃人的传统，难道你还能尊重它？因而，我们尊重的，到底是经验，还是智慧？

偏见与无知

偶遇“偏见比无知更可怕”这个句子，被吸引了一下，想了想却又想不通。偏见，不是出自于对反面知识的无知吗？正如我们对刚认识的人很容易有偏见，认识久了却会重新调整对他的评估。又如我们对陌生的外国很容易有偏见，实地居住和生活了过后却会有另一番体会。

如果“偏见”和“无知”在这里指的是“状态”，知少少偏信一方怎么会比全然不知更可怕呢？如果指的是“心态”，即明知自己有偏见仍固执，明知自己无知仍得意，那两者都是同出一辙的不可取。

所以作者究竟想通过这个句子带出什么意义？或许，他想说的是偏见的心态比无知的状态更可怕（尽管偏见就是比全然无知稍微好一点的无知），因为有了偏见的心态，就会永远被狭窄的知识面捆绑；而无知的状态，却可以轻易地用学习和认识去突破。

为何我要大费周章对这个句子抽丝剥茧？因为它不仅仅让我困惑，也有可能隐含着“宁可全然无知，也不要有偏见”的反智想法（作者无心，读者有意）。当不完全对立的两个概念拿来被比较，如真要从其中领会什么，这层含义或许就是仅有的可能。

作者要批判的是心态，而不是状态。因为，正如上述，偏见就是一种无知。知少少，比全然不知好；知多，又比知少少好。从无知到知更多，这是循序渐进无限扩张的过程。人的意识都是主观的，也仅能有限度地处理无限的讯息，所以不可能没有偏见，而只能让偏见逐渐变少，或让偏见靠近中间。至于全然无知，则是根本要不得的。

Time and Words

What do time and words have in common? It may seem absurd to link them, but I personally think that they share two important characteristics.

One is that both of them are fair. There aren't too many things in this world fair. Time, for one, is fair to everyone, be them the haves or the have nots, be them the smart ones or the dull ones, be them the young guns or the old folks, all of us is entitled 24 hours per day indiscriminately, no more or no less. The only difference is how do we use it. Words, on the other hand, is also fair to everyone, all of us is free to create it to exert our freedom of speech and express ourselves. While authority have their powerful propaganda machine to disseminate official news, common people like us also have different ways to voice out our dissent and disobedience, often by using humorous metaphor. Not to mention that foundation of modern justice is based on laws - a complex vortex of words. Although the barrier to learn, improve and master a language do exist, but it is one of the easiest barrier to overcome, with efforts purely is enough, unless unfortunately you are born with dyslexia or similar symptom. Gratefully, most of us do not suffer from this, so words is still fair to most of us.

The second common trait that they share is their revealing power. As the famous Latin saying goes, TEMPUS OMNIA REVELAT, which means time reveals all things. Nothing can be hidden forever and time is the most powerful arbiter, ideally. (The world is nonetheless imperfect and hence I have to put in this extra word cautiously, but having said so, I do have faith in this principle, in most of the aspects. I just don't want to be too disheartened if this principle want to play hide and seek sometimes). Words, similarly, can reveal most of the masks, various kind of masks. From the classic Aesop fables, "fine clothes may disguise, but silly words will disclose a fool", tell us much about it. Lie will not last but truth will be uncovered, ideally also. (White lie is not a lie, and some lies are necessary to survive.) To be a perfect liar, you need to have perfect memory, and luckily most of us are not granted this super ability.

Both time and words seem like a twin of natural sage, unconditionally guiding us towards a better path. Do you appreciate them?

P/S： Popping out from my mind after writing paragraphs above, the third commonality is that both heal our souls. Is it equally important as the former both traits? I am too lazy to think now.

名正言顺

在这个提倡和平的现代社会里，所有发起战争的都是侵略者，无论出师有没有名，但其实“名正”的影响力还是蛮大的，至少可以拿来塞住大众的嘴和误导大众的耳。

你没看到当油涨价时，所有商家都跳出来喊冤竞相加价，仿佛之前都在做亏本生意；待得油价回跌时，跳蚤都变寒蝉，装作没一回事。

你没看到当经济不景时，许多大企业第一时间停薪减薪迫假裁员，不管之前累积的盈余有多少。

你没看到报喜时，多少人争功；报忧时，多少人闪躲；有问题发生时，多少人第一时间想到的是找只羊来代罪，而不是去找问题的症状；再想到的是随便找只鸡来杀，以儆效尤。

名正，则言顺；言顺，又如何？我是文明人，请用道理来说服我，但许多“道理”是连小孩都骗不了的Bullshit，纯粹是借名行事趁名打劫，而你又奈何的了？世界如此复杂，岂是一个道理说了算？越是堂而皇之的，越可能是虚伪的，而我们却害怕承受不了太清楚的痛苦，而宁愿麻醉地迷信“正名”，有什么还会比这更悲哀的呢？

与其背负那么多“正名”，我宁愿承认自己是伪君子。

聪慧

聪明和智慧，经常被拿来比较，如鱼与熊掌。聪明是在“小事”上的脑筋灵光；而智慧是在“大事”上的心灵透彻，两者仿佛不能兼容。有多少人聪明反被聪明误，太聪明的反而因机关算尽而没好收场。

要不要追寻聪明，其实每个人心中多少都有谱，有的害怕脑筋变灵光顾虑太多，有的害怕脑筋不灵光容易遭殃，有的害怕看太清楚宁愿难得糊涂，有的害怕无知不停寻找。

就算有智慧的未必聪明，聪明的未必有智慧；两者真得不能兼容吗？斤斤计较根本就不是聪明，而是狭窄的愚蠢。吸收资讯快，脑筋转得快，是应付“小事”上不可多得的强项；而强于应付“小事”，未必会忽视“大事”。

聪明和智慧，都是从不断学习和经验累积中升华的，为什么不可兼得？

Temporary bias

There is one thing I am very sure, that my words would eventually hurt myself and I have to bite back my tongue. As quick as I derive meanings and motives from observations, moment later I will say another thing when I have more insightful inputs.

I am not sure if I should not judge that fast, but I realize in order to make a stand, I need quick and intuitive stereotyping follows by careful and thorough rumination. I never had this kind of irony before but this is how I am now. A complex mind full of irony, in search of better clarity in life.

They say we can't live without stereotypes and what we need is to keep improving our stereotyping. Stereotyping is only dangerous when you are so used to it and are adamant to change it even a contradicting signal or observation stand in front of your eyes.

That's why I will always be changing my stereotypes, and hence always be contradicting. But I do hope day by day, I will be less and less bias and ironical.

我在说话吗？

每一天，我们听到不少话，大多都是一般话。一开始听到，还会困惑一下；听多了，就觉得那些话真的很一般，道听再途说，一代传一代，一口传一口，基本上如同出一撤，烙饼都不会烙得如此相像，基因复制还会有突变呢！于是我开始纳闷了，难道这就是社会的智慧和经验传承？

或许，话的信服力终究得看人。同样的话从不同的人口里说出来，质量（不是份量，如果是份量，只管听高官的话就好了）不一样，因为一些人是随口讲中，一些人是人云亦云，一些人是真心分享。

“听话”，真的不简单呢？何时可以让我听到“胜读十年书”的一席话呢？

自疯

为什么疯子是疯子？因为他们只活在自己的世界里。但我们就不是疯子了吗，我们也不是只活在自己的世界里么？很多时候，我们只能用自己的感觉去认识世界，只能用自己的眼光去判断人事，即便是摆在眼前的事实，我们也无力正确处理所有讯息，而只能用思维去过滤和抽取仅仅所需的。什么样的人，就看出什么样的世界。很唯心？你能不唯心吗？当局者迷，众人皆醉。

什么是情商？不就是自欺而已么，看你要欺骗自己让自己快乐点，还是要让自己伤心点。世上的万事，或许都是随机发生的，但我们就是要欺骗自己，为它赋予意义，好让自己有力量前进，无论是向坏的还是向好的。自欺欺人不好？我们每天都在做，不是我们想欺人，而是我们未必懂我们在自欺。

人就是疯子。疯子不好么？至少活在自己的世界比活在别人的世界好。更何况，疯子也有不同类型的，有的活得很开心，有的活得很自虐，有的让人很开心，有的让人很无奈……你是哪一种？

Learning

If you have to choose a person to learn from between a billionaire and a millionaire, who will you choose? Can you really choose? You can't. This question is invalid. The billionaire could have inherited a trillion from his father and the millionaire could be self-made all the way. The current status or position of a person tells nothing about whether he or she is a star or a flop. Furthermore, in reality it's hard to know a person's background.

The point I want to bring out is that, it is not true that you can always learn something from someone who is at a superior position than where you are at, because the superiority may not be justified. How often do we just bow to superiority without observation and reasoning? The hunger for success blinds our eyes and binds us to quick emulation. Imitation does not always work as time changes, circumstances varies and sometimes luck plays its part.

Of course the chances of learning something from someone with higher position than from someone with lower position are greater, but then again, sometimes we are simply just fascinated by their positions. If you really want to learn something, learn with your heart and stay unfazed by any other exterior forms: superiority, experience, age, "proven success" and bla bla bla.

Use your eyes. Grow your wisdom.

灰色

天堂飘着纯洁的白色，地狱滴着阴森的黑色，夹杂在白色与黑色之间的人间，充满着灰色。在这里，你找不到属于白色的真理，也误认了属于黑色的荒唐。没有了单纯的二元划分，无论人再渴望找寻真理或荒谬，终究也找不到。想向真理迈进，却永远到达不了真理，究竟是人的悲哀还是生存的意义所在？

执意捍卫真理和正义却从不自省的人，一是挂羊皮骗吃，二是想得太单纯，结果常常因为接受不了黑暗的存在而毅然放弃追寻光明。世间的光明，并非如昼日的阳光般遍照，而是如漆黑中的微光闪烁，需要不懈的思考和找寻。若左边的路径万里无光，右边的路径未必有光。如果向下是往地狱，反方向走自然可到天堂，只可惜这是人间的平地，错的反方向不一定是对，更别说错误在时间和空间上都不是绝对的。所以，不经思考而把人划分为正义或邪恶是可悲的，不经分析而把事看得太光明或太黑暗是可笑的。

人，永远成不了天使，也不该堕落成恶魔。上天赋予每个人不同的肤色，但灰色却是我们共同的心色，看你要油白一点或涂黑一点而已。

Can you judge the book by its cover?

The common wisdom tells us that you can't. But yet it's so commonly practiced, out of necessity. If there are hundreds of books you need to digest, can you read all and judge it by contents? If there isn't even enough time for you to digest, can you spare additional time to judge it by contents? It's not impossible if you have endless energy and time.

Yet you cannot just simply judge the book by its cover and that's it. There's only two possible outcomes, you either judge it correctly, or wrongly. It's important to know why is that so. Maybe you can include other factors like thickness, published year, where you get it from and ec cetera. Case after case, you may have develop a database (experience) to help you make better judgement. I think this is essential to help me to deal with people more efficiently.

It's actually similar to what has been described in previous article, it's the feedback that is most important.

Perhaps I did too much analysis on closed loop feedback system. :)

Just my two cent thought.

Principle & Prejudice

To live with wrong principles is better than to live with no principle. By adhering to principle, even the wrong one, you seek consistency in your beliefs and behaviours. And if you are a little bit smarter to realize that your so called principles may be wrong or obsolete, then you will scrutinize it frequently to adopt a better one, leading to a better understanding of yourself and more complete control of yourself. Diverted to a wrong path before made you really appreciates the importance of walking the right path. If there is no absolutely right or wrong path, but only appropriate path at the appropriate moment, then the significance of refreshing principles frequently is too obvious to be mentioned.

The same can be said about prejudice. To live with wrong prejudice (is there right prejudice anyway?) is better than to live with no prejudice. This may sound wrong but to think about it, none of us is free from prejudice. None of us can proclaim that. Anyone who thinks that he or she is absolutely objective is an absolute hypocrite. Anyone who is a little bit smarter always prepare to admit that he or she have wrong prejudices against something or someone. It's just because none of us is perfect. So I wouldn't mind to develop prejudice quickly if need to and leave rooms for rectification. Frequent rectification of prejudice brings objectiveness closer. The earlier we get into a wrong path, the earlier we get into the right path.

Live with whatever principle and prejudice you may be, just keep an eye to change it to a better one.