Tuesday, August 31, 2010

扒粪取谷 – 华语系人们的“善走捷径”而“误入歧途” Taking Shortcut

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

扒粪取谷 – 华语系人们的“善走捷径”而“误入歧途”

看中国人们“取益于他人与祖宗”的病态情结

Taking Shortcut


陈凯 Kai Chen 8/31/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspotm.com

说华语系人们善于“取益于他人与祖宗”、善于偷窃、抄袭、剽窃、抢掠、骗取、缺失创造力与想象力、迷恋于作奴与作主已不是什么新闻。 但华语系的人们“善走捷径”而“误入歧途”的“扒粪取谷”心态情结仍常常使我惊叹沮丧不已。

我所观察过的中文系的人们常常由于他们的非理性、不一致与无道德常令人啼笑皆非: 有人反中共而不反中国的专制文化;有人反孔儒文化而不反中共党奴朝;有人反毛而不反共;有人反共而不反毛;有人向往自由而崇尚专制秩序;有人希望幸福但要仰望救星;有人渴望过有尊严的生活但拒绝付出代价从自身做起;有人愿意追求真实正义却不想承担个体责任;有人认知中国专制文化与中共暴政的关系但拒绝触动中文“文字语言的圣牛”、、。 他们都想用抱住身边的一个熟悉的伪概念、伪实体去走一个道德的捷径--不用认知真实就可以幸福自由。 然而他们都忽视了这一个真实:

那些想走捷径的人将永远误入歧途。那些相信有似“人间天堂”的乌托邦的人要么是想作奴隶、要么是想将奴役的锁链套在他人身上。 那些专制的“救星们”永远依靠奴隶们的“仰望北斗星”的“被救求救”心态奴役人类。

诚然,中文语言文字的“不可再造性”与“文字定义的强权官方性”与华语系人们的病态情结息息相关: 人们对手术刀、显微镜、望远镜般的英文语言拒绝从实质与道德上的认知。 人们迷恋在用祖宗留下来的“粪耙子”般的中文语言文字在历朝历代专制祖宗留下来的“专制粪堆”中扒粪取谷。 这一病态现象不光是由于缺失对上苍(God)的真实信仰、不光是由于确实个体价值、不光是由于对强权地位的迷恋崇拜,也是由于数千年专制文化与单音节象形文字所造成的根深蒂固的病态文化习惯—“走捷径”(Taking shortcut)。

画画儿附义伪造文字去描述表象而拒绝探求实质内涵是想“走捷径”;“扒粪取谷”去复古返祖不求创造是想“走捷径”;“劫富济贫”去偷抢他人所得以致富是想“走捷径”;“拜偶像崇人间救星”而回避自救自省是想“走捷径”;“只记不思”的抄袭、剽窃、模仿是想“走捷径”;“随大流、攀大头、取悦于人”爬社会阶梯式想“走捷径”;不用上苍所赐的良知理性去独立思考鉴别而去求“枪杆子里出强权”也是想“走捷径”。 可是,上苍(God)从没有祝福过那些想“走捷径”的蠢人们。 他们所得到的就是今天中文系的人们所得到的:一场无尽的噩梦;一个永远被鞭笞的陀螺;每一个人的默默的绝望与虚无。

在基督文化与信仰中产生了科学与进步并非偶然: 个体与上苍(God)的直接沟通导致了人们不相信“走捷径”是获取真知的途径。 “只有对真实的追求才能使你自由”(Only Truth shall set you free!)_基督的铭言照亮了世界上在黑暗中煎熬磨难的人们争取自由与真实幸福的路。 人们从此摈弃了用强权与自上而下的专制产生的“走捷径”病态情结,走上了不畏强权,不惑实利的追求真实的艰难而漫长的“道德方向”之路。 强权的鞭子抽打着的“朝代循环”的无望被动的“陀螺心态”被基督精神的道德指南彻底击毁。 人类社会从基督的道德指南走上了2010年的良知的路。 人们从基督的教义中认识到: 在追求自由与幸福欢乐的路上是没有“捷径”好走的。 Freedom indeed is not free. 自由从来就不意味着“免费的午餐”。 在个体与神(上苍、God)的沟通中,在人们对自由、尊严、正义与真实幸福的不懈追求中,“人”无畏地用艰辛的努力走向了未知的大海,用上苍(God)赋予每一个个体的良知与理性创造着科学的不断进步与物质财富的丰硕。

然而,“图方便”、“不求真”、“迷捷径”、“走仕途”的中文系的人们直到今天并不认同基督精神与“人不走捷径而求真”的道德心态。 沿袭中文与祖宗的病态专制、用祖宗留下的“粪耙子(中文)”在粪堆中“扒粪取谷”成了中文系的人们摄取伪价值的迷恋。 难怪饥荒、疾病与愚昧成了“扒粪取谷”的人们难以摆脱的恶现象。 学习与运用英文语言以摆脱“奴”而走入“人”的行列不光需要政治意愿、道德勇气与理性智慧,也必然需要人们彻底摆脱由于“善走捷径”的文化心态习性而“误入歧途”的朝代循环的无奈与无望。

进入英文语言系统绝不是另一个“走捷径”。 进入英文语言系统意味着脱离华人传统的专制语言与文化习惯,意味着从虚无走入存在、从思维混乱走入理性清晰、从邪恶的吃人循环走入创造价值的道德方向。 中文语言决不能成为伪信仰的“圣牛”而被作为工具而沿袭。 中文语言应被置放在人类语言博物馆中被作为警讯: 告知人们由中文语言所代表的专制是一条行不通的死路。 对中文语言与文化的研究也绝不是为了继承与发扬专制,而是告诫所有的人们中文语言文化是导致人类悲剧惨案的源头。

运用中文去偷、去抄、去抢、去骗、去模仿绝不是什么真实的创造价值的工作。 它与运用英文去理解、去探索、去创造有着本质的不同:前者是正向的道德的思维行为。 后者是负向的非道德思维行为。 中共党奴朝的反上苍(反良知)与美国的尊崇上苍是反向的区别。

中文的“简洁”与“非定义性”绝不是什么“优秀与伟大”,而是与中文系人们的“善走捷径”而“误入歧途”的悲剧历史息息相关、一脉相承的。 脱离中文语言文化的奴役,走入英文语言文化与基督精神是中文系人们必然要走的、理性的、道德的艰辛、漫长与曲折的通向自由、欢乐、希望与真实幸福的路。 选择在于你。 路要你自己走。

建议: 每一天学习理解一个英文语言概念。 每一天脱离一个中文等级表达习惯。 每一天尝试去做一件你从没有做过的事。 每一天去思考一个你从未想过的题目概念。 每一天从与你不同的人身上观察理解到一个正向的价值。

从“平反六四”看华人理性与自省力的缺失 Let Murderers Judge Your Values?

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

从“平反六四”看华人理性与自省力的缺失

Let Murderers Judge Your Values?


陈凯 8/31/2010 www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

今年 (2010)六月四日我参与了在中共(党奴)国洛杉矶领事馆前的纪念抗议活动。 一些著名的六四参与者们也出席了这个活动。 在抗议的人群中人们举着“平反六四”的标语牌。 扩音器里持续地播放着“血染的风采”(一个中共宣传电影中的主题曲)。

我猛然感到极不协调,有一种要呕吐的感觉。 作为一个六四的见证人,我在1989 的天安门广场上有过同样的感觉: 当我听到学生民众们唱着“国际歌”与“国歌 – 义勇军进行曲”的时候,那种极不协调的令人恶心发笑的感受使我头皮发麻,马上想从人群中的麻木、虚幻、奴性的肮脏中逃出去。 然而我没有逃出去。 我懂得人们不可能再长期的奴役中马上找的自己的语言与表达。 人们需要时间、需要意愿、勇气与理性智慧去理解正在发生的一切。

然而二十一年过后,我看到的是同样的语言,听到的是同样的音乐歌曲。 我的心中脑中仍旧充满着同样的恶心与不认同。 难道人们在这二十一年中没有一点自省进步吗? 难道人们的灵魂与理性 – 上苍赋予每一个人的内在所有都被某种邪恶的文化惯性所彻底地阉割了吗? 难道人们仍旧拒绝承担每一个个体在中共邪恶政体持续作恶杀人中的道德责任吗? 难道我们真是行尸走肉般的“宦奴娼”吗? 难道每一个毒瘾成性的“鸦片白面”徒们只是想用铲除“贩毒制毒者”来医治所谓群体与自己的吸毒症吗? 难道这种理性与自省力的完全缺失不会导致“寻找救星与新的更强力毒品”的另一个悲剧性的邪恶专制吗?

我决定我不能沉默。 我要讲几句。 我不能成为这种令人作呕的麻木文化中的一员: 我拿起了麦克风用英语阐述了我的如上看法。 可是在我还没有完全讲完的时候,那些打着“平反六四”口号的人们就不耐烦地宣叫着打断了我的发言。 奴隶们用“反皇帝而保卫皇权”誓死捍卫着奴役自身的奴役制。 这一次我在“血染的风采”的崇尚专制奴役的乐曲中快步离开了现场。 我彻底地懂得了“中国”不光是“不可救”的,不光是“不能救”的,也是“不应该救”的。

当人们拒绝用对上苍(良知)的尊崇去拯救每一个个体自身的灵魂的时候,“国家”、“民族”、“百姓”、“人民”等等虚无的概念口号不过是每一个族群奴隶逃避个体自由与个体道德责任的盔甲与借口罢了。 在中王朝奴役文化中,每一个奴隶早就习惯了被“环境”、“族群”、“祖宗”、“文化”、“政府”、“强权者”定义。 在一个没有信仰与对上苍的(相信人是被上苍所创、人的不可被剥夺的权利是被上苍所赐)的尊崇的奴役文化中,人们(每一个个体)当然要从群体、民族、强权与奴役或被奴役中寻找生命的意义。 “平反六四”自然地成为了中奴朝的人们在群体与强权中寻找自身意义的引申。 这并不奇怪。 奇怪的与令人作呕的是二十一年过后的今天,人们仍拒绝去寻找奴役制的基点原因。 人们仍旧对真实逃避与恐惧而不是追求。

追求真实不光需要意愿与智慧。 追求真实更需要勇气与付出代价的精神: 基督的最伟大的铭言是“只有(追求)真实才能使你自由”。 中文语言系的人们: 你真的想追求自由吗? 如果你真想追求自由与随之而来的得到真实幸福的可能,你就要首先驱除自身的恐惧感。 真实会将你带到你从未涉足的未知的海洋中去。 人类的希望绝不是在你的专制祖先制造的千疮百孔的、即将倾覆的破帆船上。 鼓起你的勇气,摈弃那个奴役的破帆船,跳到未知的希望的海洋中畅游探索。 你会碰到危险因为追求意味着探险。 你会呛水、疲劳与烦恼,因为你的理性肌肉与良知道德的自省已经在奴役的破帆船上萎缩的太久了。 但生命、自由与对真实幸福的追求在召唤着你。 那个最强大的、人的不懈的冲动是上苍植在每一个被造个体的心中的。 没有这个对真实的追求,你会永远陷在无奈绝望的泥潭中,渴望着新的救世主们为你制造新的精神鸦片与白面。 你只会在幻觉迷梦中寻找“为国捐躯”的伪高潮。 你的内在、灵魂、良知、智慧与理性只会默默地继续萎缩与死亡。

建立新的语言、重组新的词汇与表达、创出新的艺术形式、重归上苍(良知道德)的怀抱是所有中文语言系的人们的当务之急。

加速中共党奴朝的死亡,而绝非“救国救奴救主救族”,是每一个追求真实的、崇尚自由的人的、理性与良知的唯一希望之路。 “平反六四”—“让杀你父母强奸你妻女的刽子手去为你恢复名誉地位”不光暴露了你的理性的混乱、迷茫与精神错乱,也暴露了你道德与良知的腐败与完全的缺失。 也许中文语言系的人们更应该问的是: 你是否愿意鼓起勇气清晰你自身的理性、拯救你自身的灵魂?!

Monday, August 30, 2010

Creativity Only For The State 汉语--被“国”“政府”控制的语言/创造

Book Link 图书链锁: ”The Writing on the Wall" - How Asian Orthography Curbs Creativity

【显而易见 - 为什么亚洲基于汉语的象形文字损害阻碍人的创造力】

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Wall-Orthography-Creativity-Encounters/dp/0812237110/ref=cm_cr-mr-img

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

汉纳斯的关于汉语阻碍人的创造力、想象力的精彩论述"The Writing on the Wall" 【显而易见 - 为什么亚洲基于汉语的象形文字损害阻碍人的创造力】是每一个愿意并勇于了解自身文化语言的中文系的人们必读的良书。 望每一个汉语的受害者与害人者深思并寻找答案与替代语言。

Kai Chen's Words:

William Hannas' courageous and deep analytical book on Chinese character-based Asian orthography needs to be read by everyone Chinese character-based Asian language user. Thus people can understand why the Asians lack creativity and imagination. Courage with strong will to face the truth is needed and only through a thorough understanding we can start to find solutions and replacement.


Creativity Only For The State

汉语--被“国”“政府”控制的语言/创造


June 10, 2003

This review is from: The Writing on the Wall: How Asian Orthography Curbs Creativity (Encounters with Asia) (Hardcover)

by Lee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3KM29BF64M069/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

"The Writing On The Wall" by William Hannas opens eyes and minds to new arguments about nature or nurture. The timeworn topic is well worth exploring, and it is especially interesting when a Westerner looks across several Asian regions to address it. Fortunately, the author speaks Vietnamese, three dialects spoken in China, Japanese, and Korean. His perspective is unique among Westerners and his views are worthy of careful note.

The book reminds us that China was an empire with a central authority, and all were subordinated to the emperor. So it was for thousands of years; and so it is today with the Communist Party as emperor. Where is there a need to be creative unless it is to devise methods to bring greater glory and power to the State?

This seems similar to the Middle Ages in Europe. Kings and barons ruled fiefs, and their subordinates curried favor. Again, what else was there to do? But, when the kings and other powerbrokers began to speak and write the languages of the little people rather than Latin and French, things began to change. In East Asia today the powerbrokers write in a language [character based] that the little people do not easily comprehend. Memorizing 3,000 characters certainly supports exercising form over substance. And, as in Mandarin times, having completed the form, one could enter the elite. Today, one must perform what work to enter the elite? Answer: memorize 3,000 characters, perform exceptional Party (emperor) work, or be closely related to one who has.

The main job today in China is to accrue power and hegemony. There's little scope for creativity here, given the thousands of years China has practiced at it. So how creative does today's Chinese elite need to be? Only enough to keep the West away from the door, for example by fanning the fires in the Middle East and being able to hold the U.S. 7th Fleet at bay. These seem like simple tasks that can be accomplished with a bit of technology transfer to upgrade antiship weapons and build nuclear strategic deterrence. The technology transfer is well documented in the book and woe to the West for letting it happen so easily.

So is it nature or nurture? Hannas clearly notes that there are many Chinese who have emigrated to the West who have demonstrated creativity. The role of spoken and written Asian languages in creativity is worthy of consideration, and it is well covered in this book.

Friday, August 27, 2010

[One in a Billion] E-Book now Available 【一比十亿】电子版上市

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

[One in a Billion] E-Book now Available

【一比十亿】电子版上市

陈凯公告:

【一比十亿】电子版已于近日在Amazon等七个电子购书点上市。 请愿购书者点击如下链锁购书:

Kai Chen Announcement:

"One in a Billion -Journey toward Freedom" E-book is now available in seven E-book purchasing websites. If you want to purchase this book, please click the following E-book sales links:


--------------------------------------------

One in a Billion - Journey toward Freedom

一比十亿 - 通往自由的旅程

Author: Kai Chen 作者:陈凯


1. Amazon - Kindle (E-book)

http://www.amazon.com/One-In-A-Billion-ebook/dp/B003X27WCQ/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1282922200&sr=1-1-catcorr

2. Barns & Noble

http://productsearch.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?store=EBOOK&WRD=One+in+a+Billion%2C+Kai+Chen

3. AuthorHouse E-Book:

http://www.authorhouse.com/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=42719

--------------------------------------------------

"One in a Billion" E-book also available on:

*Scribd.com
*Booksonboard.com
*Google Editions
*Sony Reader

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Does Islam Suck? 伊斯兰教真的是善教吗?



陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

说所有文化与宗教都是“等同的”和没有优劣之分的是地地道道的欺人之谈: 文化与宗教不像种族,是被人创造的而绝非被上帝创造的。 由此文化与宗教是应该被分析评判的。 人类的永恒终极价值 - “生命、自由、尊严与对幸福的追求”是人们分析评判所有文化与宗教的原则标准。 那些将中国文化与伊斯兰宗教视为“圣牛”的卫道士们其实只是在捍卫人性中的邪恶。

Kai Chen's Words:

To say that all cultures and religions are equal without a judgment of Good vs Evil is a sheer self-deception. Unlike race, cultures and religions are created by men, Not by God. Thus all cultures and religions should be analyzed according to eternal/universal human values - Life, Liberty, Dignity and Pursuit of Happiness. Those who take Chinese culture or Islamic religion as some kind of "sacred cow" are only out to defend evil and defects in human nature.


----------------------------------------------

Andrew Klavan Video LinK 视频链锁:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t1gv1zeMkY&feature=fvsr

Does Islam Suck?

伊斯兰教真的是善教吗?


by Andrew Klavan

Whenever I am told I must be tolerant of other people’s religion, I always wonder, well, which tenet of their religion do you mean? A religion, after all, is a system of beliefs and to say that all beliefs are equally worthy of tolerance is to say, essentially, that ideas don’t matter at all. It’s nonsense of the purest ray serene.

For instance, I always try not to burn or behead those who hold different views on transubstantiation than I do – though there are days when it’s difficult, believe you me. But if, like those Westboro Baptist clowns, you turn up at a US soldiers’ funeral claiming he deserved to die because America tolerates homosexuality and “God hates fags,” then you have been un-friended by me, brother. Because your beliefs suck.

So with a group of Muslims cruelly and despicably determined to raise a triumphalist mosque near the site of the Islamist atrocities of 9/11 in New York, the question naturally occurs: Does Islam suck?

Fortunately PJTV’s lovable Klavan on the Culture is here to examine the question. Well, I think he’s lovable! And I’ll have his video right here as soon as an embeddable version is available.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Kirk Cameron/MONUMENTAL: In Search of America’s National Treasure 前影星将制作纪录片“美国的精神宝藏”

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

我为能在“美国的精神宝藏”一片中贡献一点力量感到骄傲。 此片将于2011年初与观众见面。 我希望我的故事能加入这“美国的精神宝藏”成为激励人们为自由与人的尊严博争的一个插曲。 我在此感谢Kirk Cameron并祝愿他的影片成功。

Kai Chen's Words:

Kirk Cameron may interview me for his project "MONUMENTAL: In Search of America’s National Treasure". I am very proud to be able to contribute to this worthy project. I hope my story will join many other stories that depict American spirit and inspire all freedom-loving people in the world to fight for liberty and human dignity. This documentary will be released early 2011. I want to thank Kirk Cameron for his effort and wish the movie a great success.

From Kirk Cameron: 克尔克. 卡莫乐恩 (影星)

许多人们期待着大人物、救世主去解决美国的难题。 但这绝非美国的建国精神。 其实美国的建国是自下而上靠普通人们的。 真正的正向变化也绝不会从上至下。 真正的社会进步绝不是从什么总统办公室开始,而是从我们每一家的晚餐桌边的讨论开始。

So many people are waiting around for our leaders to come up with a grand plan to save our nation. But is that really how America got started? What if things actually work the other way around? What if real change doesn’t start at the top but at the bottom? What if the best place to begin transforming our country is not the Oval Office but the dinner table?


-----------------------------------------------

Kirk Cameron Announces New Documentary, MONUMENTAL: In Search of America’s National Treasure

前影星将制作纪录片“美国的精神宝藏”



Cameron on location in England

Film currently in production and is scheduled to release early 2011.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4406114.htm

This is one of the most important journeys of my life. America is worth fighting for, and so are our families.

Burbank, CA (PRWEB) August 20, 2010

Kirk Cameron Productions and Pyro Pictures Corporation began principle photography on May 23 for the feature film Monumental, a documentary that seeks to unearth America’s true “National Treasure,” the key to its exceptional role in world history. The independent film, to be completed in 4Q 2010, will be shot on location in Los Angeles, Scotland, England, Holland, Boston, Plymouth and the District of Columbia. Principal photography will wrap in September 2010.

Kirk Cameron, the television and film actor noted for his work in the 2008 inspirational hit Fireproof as well as memorable roles on ABC's Growing Pains and in the Left Behind movies, recently said of his new project,

“This year, I’m turning 40. Amazing. It seems like yesterday my pouffy mullet and parachute pants were all the rage and Prince had a #1 hit on the radio. Now I’m married to the most beautiful woman, raising six children and living the American dream. But each day as I look around, I’m left with a sinking feeling that America is losing her way. Big time. My thoughts go straight to my children. I want them to have a bright and wonderful future, but what will life will be like for them when I'm gone? The soul of our country is sick, and history shows me we are headed for disaster if we don't change course now.

Here's my hunch: Could it be that we have simply forgotten what made us such a great nation in the first place? So many people are waiting around for our leaders to come up with a grand plan to save our nation. But is that really how America got started? What if things actually work the other way around? What if real change doesn’t start at the top but at the bottom? What if the best place to begin transforming our country is not the Oval Office but the dinner table?

Monumental is my journey to find answers to these questions. I’m retracing the footsteps of our Founders from England to America in the hope of rediscovering our true ‘national treasure’ so that we can use it to restore our country.”

Producer/Director Duane Barnhart’s company Pyro Pictures Corporation is heading up production of Monumental. Barnhart says of the film,

“I am very excited about this project. From my perspective, this is a character-driven story interwoven throughout the historical events that shaped our great country. When I got the call to produce it, Kirk had already been researching for 3 years with Dr. Marshall Foster of World History Institute. I’m looking forward to capturing footage of Kirk walking in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers throughout America and in Europe.”

When asked how Cameron and Dr. Foster began to work together, Foster said, “After studying the Pilgrims, Kirk wanted to take his family on a tour of Plymouth, MA. I have given tours there every year for the past 35 years. When I took Kirk, he said at first he was angry that he didn’t learn this stuff in school. But his anger soon turned to excitement, and he asked me to meet him regularly to discuss world history. That was almost three years ago.”

Together, Foster, Cameron and Barnhart have teamed up with Kevin Miller, who has written several documentaries, including 2008’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein.

“I’ve always been fascinated with the story of how America was founded. So when I was offered the opportunity to help craft this film, I couldn’t wait to dive into the research. Even though we’re still early in the process, what I’ve discovered so far has completely revolutionized my perspective on America, on government and on my role as a citizen. In Canada where I live, the tendency is often to see the worst in America. My goal with this film is to reverse that perception by helping people understand that the universal values and principles upon which America was founded can lead to liberty not only in the United States but everywhere in the world.”

When asked why he decided to make the film, Cameron said, “This is one of the most important journeys of my life. America is worth fighting for, and so are our families. We can still be a "city upon a hill." But we need to work together. With God's help, we can turn this thing around. Someone once said, "Footprints in history are not made sitting down." I couldn’t agree more. So, I’m asking every American to stand with me in this monumental moment to rediscover America's true national treasure. Our children and our children's children will thank us for it.”

NEWS SOURCE: Pyro Pictures Corporation - www.pyropictures.com

易纲/“中化文明一脉相承”Why Chinese Language Impedes Progress

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

易纲/“中化文明一脉相承”

Why Chinese Language Impedes Progress

视频链锁 Video Link:


http://video.sina.com.cn/p/finance/economist/jingjixueren/20091130/154960440982.html

  以下为演讲实录:

  我们研究还有一个问题,就是定义不清,不讲逻辑,争论情绪化。我们研究都要有一个定义,要有一个研究的起点。你定义一样才有共同语言,是讨论的基础,我们很多非常情绪化的争论,是由于定义不清,说的是两码事,看着争论挺激烈,实际说的两码事,各讲各的道理,从开始的定义就不一样。比如说我们关于医疗体系改革的问题,争论的非常激烈。但是对公益性,没有定义,最接近的概念是公众产品。对外部性,信息不对称都没有很好的定义,导致这个争论不太有意义。

  所以我总结一下,我今天上面讲的,我的总结也是我一直和别人讨论中,一直遇到的一个问题,李约瑟之谜,中国古代有四大发明,有这么多发明,但是为什么中国后来落后了,工业革命没有发生在中国。这是李约瑟科学史上系统的研究了中国在历史上的发明和科学上的贡献以后提炼出来的李约瑟之谜。我今天讲的一部分是语言,一部分是形式逻辑,还有一部分是我们研究中的这些方法上的欠缺。我把它归纳起来,我如果要是能够从一个角度对回答李约瑟之谜也有参考的论述的话,我认为是这么几条:

  一条,这个语言,它本身的模糊性。我们历史上有很多伟大的发明,但这些伟大的发明有很多没有记载清楚,有很多就失传了。也有很多说的很神奇,但是没有对这个神奇东西的精确的描述,使得你无法判断这个神奇在科学上到底到了那些成为了。由于我们语言不够精确,记载的不够细致有关。比如说我们历史上有很多伟大的关于建筑的工学,关于工学的著作。特别是宋朝,有很多非常成系统的工学的著作。一看工学著作,我跟建筑学家讨论宋朝的工学著作,我也不太懂,得请教,有人是搞设计的,有人是搞力学的,有人是搞结构的,总得感觉,有描述,但是描述的不够精确,有的结构非常的神奇,现在来说是很高的科学,由于当时的记载不够精细,不够准确,使得我们无法判断当时是不是掌握了这种技术。那么这种技术,包括几何上的算度,包括力学上的计算,你真正掌握了一定有力学上的计算。我们的描述,看上去描述的隐约觉得是这么回事,我们现在知识多了可以往那方面套,当时我们记载不是很准确。再加上我们语言,没有单数、复数,有很多的歧义是因为没有单数、复数造成的,名词没有单数、复数,你们去发现有很多歧义是没有单数、复数造成的。包括韩国的前总统跳崖自杀,中文的报道是说警卫跟着总统怎么着,看中文报道的时候,我就有疑义,不明白有几个警卫,英文报道是一个警卫,警卫给他拿烟去,这时候就跳崖,就比较明白了。中文写的是警卫,总统是可以有几个警卫的,看英文描述是一个警卫,是单数还是复数,在很多重大的问题,还有历史之谜都因为这个出现了。因为你没有单数、复数,所以你没法判断这个是什么样的情况。这是你的语言上的问题。

  第二个问题,我们文人的习惯,文人愿意记最重要,什么事最重要,皇上的事最重要,朝廷的事最重要,科学怎么建一个房子,这些是雕虫小技,我们很多大的学者们,他不屑记载这些所谓的雕虫小技,更甭说非常细致的记载下来,中文的菜单,盐少许,酱油少许。英文这个菜单就是盐几克,或是汤勺一小勺,不一样,我们不屑把这个事写的非常严谨,我们文人的习惯,那个是小实,不屑记这个。历史上我们很多工匠,各朝各代的工匠是非常聪明的,可能达到某种高度,有力学,有建筑学的,有很多学的,很多可能已经达到了,我们很多不屑记这个东西,可能很多就没了。语言的加上文人的习惯,这是一个原因。

  第二个原因就是形式逻辑体系的缺乏,特别是演绎推理能力的缺乏。我们不善于,或者我们没有这个训练和这个体系,做这个推理。这是一个重大的缺失。我刚才说欧几里得几何学,形式逻辑,且不说辩证逻辑和数理逻辑,如果你没有形式逻辑最基本的训练,你没有一个比较近似于科学方法论的东西。你如果是没有科学方法论的话,只能停留在模模糊糊那个阶段。模模糊糊在2千年以前,你知道发明都江堰了是先进生产力,如果你没有形式逻辑,不能精确做推理,做一般的东西,使得你这个东西很难推广,很难重复。你可能曾经做出过一个奇迹,不可置信的奇迹都是有可能的,但是你没有文献记录你这个奇迹,你没法重复这个奇迹,你这不是科学,就是一次性发生的事件。形式逻辑的缺乏,形式推理、演绎体系的缺乏是我们一个致命的缺点。

  第三个原因,就是封建专制。学者为什么不屑记这个,为什么不愿意把话说明白呢?因为你把话说明白了以后,非常麻烦,他就不能把话说明白。所以我们的老百姓,永远是浑浑噩噩的,他说的普通的生活中的语言,跟写出的文言文又不一样。再加上封建专制搞文字狱,历朝历代都有文字狱,不愿意把话说明白。

Monday, August 23, 2010

Why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese? 为什么牛顿不可能是中国人?!

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:Kai Chen's Words:

Dr. Kenneth J. Hsü (许靖华教授)的这篇论文从学术角度揭示了中文语言的弊病与中国人无科学、无逻辑、无创造、无自由之间的关系。 这是自William Hannas 后的又一篇关于中文语言与专制文化之间关系的一篇重要学术论文。 望中文语言系的人们深思。

Dr. Kenneth J. Hsü's thesis further reveals the relationship between Chinese language and China's lack of scientific inquiry. This is one more important academic paper (since William Hannas' "The Writing on the Wall") to depict why China till today still cannot free itself from despotism/tyranny. I hope all the Chinese speaking people deeply reflect on their own cultural heritage and their own anti-logic language.

Dr. Hsu 许靖华教授:

我的自知加上我个人作为一个科学家的观察可以得出以下结论: 为什么牛顿不可能是中国人? 这是因为基于中国文化的历史背景与中文语言发展的畸形过程,由此在中国不可能出现现代科学: 中文系人们的创造力被专制历史与无逻辑语言扼杀了。

My self-knowledge and my personal observations led me to recognize some patterns. I venture to conclude on the basis of pattern-recognition that Isaac Newton was not a Chinese, because the historicity of Chinese culture and the idiosyncrasy of Chinese linguistic development have served to discourage the creativity which gave us the modem science.


---------------------------------------------------

Why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese ?
为什么牛顿不可能是中国人?!


Prof. Dr. Kenneth J. Hsü 许靖华

Search and Discovery Article #70002 (1999)

Thesis Link:  论文连锁:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/Hsu/newton.htm

Hsü’s Retirement Lecture, Delivered June 24, 1994, in Zurich

Table of Contents:

A Tale of Two Papers
The Inevitability of a Historicity
The Idiosyncrasy of a Historicity
The Two-Edge Sword of a Dephonetized Writing
The Integration of a Logographic into a Phonetic Language
Zero or Nothing
Equal to or Equivalent to
The Mandarin Mentality of Modern Scientific Establishment
References

Science is a pursuit of truth. So are philosophy and religion. Christian fundamentalists seek truth in divine revelation contained in the written words of Bible. Zen Buddhists seek truth, or Zen, through divine inspiration during meditation, or we might say that they seek truth by pattern-recognition. Philosophers seek truth by induction and deduction, and natural philosophers, alias scientists, by induction, deduction, and falsification through observations and experimentations; they used an algorithm by digitized sequencing in their pursuit.

China has a long tradition of scholarship, and the Chinese have contributed much to science and technology: Joseph Needharn has written more than a dozen volumes to document that China has been much more effective than the Europeans in finding out about nature and using their knowledge of nature to benefit mankind for 14 centuries before the scientific revolution. Nevertheless this revolution occurred in the "backward" Europe. Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, wrote to me and suggested that "deficient, not good, knowledge led to better knowledge", and he talked about an idiosyncrasy in the historicity of scientific revolution. Was Isaac Newton an idiosyncrasy in the intellectual history of mankind, or was he an inevitability? If Isaac Newton had to be born, why was he not a Chinese?

The question has been a favorite theme for speculation by historians of science. I am not a historian, and cannot hope to approach the problem, with the digitized-sequencing form of logic, like a scholarly historian. I am, however, a scientist, and I grew up in China I learned science in Chinese high school and university before coming to the West as a young man of 19, and I have been working in China with Chinese scientists during the last 15 years. My self-knowledge and my personal observations led me to recognize some patterns. I venture to conclude on the basis of pattern-recognition that Isaac Newton was not a Chinese, because the historicity of Chinese culture and the idiosyncrasy of Chinese linguistic development have served to discourage the creativity which gave us the modem science.

A Tale of Two Papers

The grossly different reactions to my two papers published a decade ago started me thinking. The starting point was the development of a seismic technique in the 1970s to explore the earth crust down to the depth of 30 km or more. It was found for the first time by geophysicists that the earth's crust under mountains is cut by low angle thrust faults into wedge-shape slabs. I do not want to get involved here with an essay on geology, except to say that I had an idea and applied the idea to interpret the geology of Switzerland and of China in two articles, 1,2

Switzerland is a small country, and the Alps extend southwestward to France. The French came up with a geological theory for the French Alps similar to that postulated by me for the Swiss Alps. The Alps also extend eastward via Austria to the Balkans, and a similar theory is also applied to explain the geology of the Austrian Alps and of the Carpathians. The theory of crustal underthrusting became generally accepted a few years after the publication of my article. While last rearguard resistance continued in Switzerland, other Europeans and Americans ignored the provincial prejudice. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Globe, the application of the idea to interpret Chinese geology has been met with stubbom resistance; I have failed during the last decade to make more than a dent in the orthodoxy of Chinese geology.

Acrimonious remarks by my Chinese colleagues led me to recall the occasion of my own metamorphosis when I was changed from Saul to Paul in my judgment on the earthscience theory of continental drift. In the early spring of 1967 when I was to leave California to join the faculty of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, a friend gave a farewell party for me. Jerry Winterer, an old UCLA classmate who had gone into marine geology at Scripps, was holding court praising the achievement of a new theory that continents are pushed apart by the growth of an intervening ocean. I edged to the group, interrupted him, and vented my polemics. Winterer remained graceful and smiled that I would eat my words some day. Two years later, Winterer had his vengeance. He sent me to the Leg 3 cruise of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, and the cruise objective was to falsify the new theory. Again and again, I experienced painfully the verification of the predictions of the revolutionary theory. Still, for two months, I wanted to fight against the inevitable. Why was it so difficult for a person of Chinese origin to accept a revolutionary idea?

The Inevitability of a Historicity

"I have given much thought to the question during the last two decades," Paul Feyerabend remarked on the inevitability of historicity. What is this historicity?

At the time of Confucius, the intellectual and social development in China found a parallel in antique Greece. There were city states, and there were a hundred flowers blossoming. Confucius was a teacher, and a politician in the State of Lu (in the present Shangtung Province). The eventual "monolithic" development of Chinese intellectual tradition is traced back to the rise of the Han Dynasty, whose first emperors in the century before the birth of Christ, discovered the usefulness of Confucius. Their predecessor, the First Emperor (of the Qin Dynasty) had unified China, but ruled only for two decades. He burned books, and buried alive Confucian scholars, and he suppressed rebellion with force. And the dynasty was overthrown a few years after the death of the tyrant. The Han emperors wisely adopted Confucius and Confucianism, because of its ideological value to the stability of their rule.

Confucius emphasized obedience and loyalty. The loyalty of sons to father, pupils to teacher, soldiers to general, ministers to emperor. Deviation from this basic principle is unethical, immoral, or even a crime punishable by death. The writings of Confucius became the bible. From then on, the Chinese intellectuals turned dogmatic: Confucius was supposed to have found the Truth.

Chinese teachers are called xianshen, or earlier born. Those who are born after Confucius, the Saintly Teacher, could have no more to contribute: they could only write footnotes or second-guess what the Grand Master might have meant by his often obfuscating statements. Yes, one can invent paper, gun-powder, compass, rockets, printing, seismometer, rotary drilling, etc., etc. But those are technological innovations, done in several instances by people who were not concerned about the philosophical truth. The philosophers were, however, not able to be inventive; they could not rebel against Confucius. That Isaac Newton was not a Chinese is thus not an idiosyncrasy in history, but an inevitability. My experiences have impressed me that this tradition lingers on in China till today.

I grew up in China, and the guiding light for me was the Confucian philosophy. Loyalty, constancy, gratitude, those are the virtues of a Confucian. After I left U.C.L.A., I had a special reason to have faith in a professor who had been kind to me in my hours of need; I had loyalty and gratitude. My professor had only polemics for the theory of continental drift. To retain my love and respect for my teacher, I had decided that I was not to analyze his judgment; I would not indulge myself in activities which might prove him wrong. My Confucian love was more important to me than my pledge to seek scientific truth.

I have a friend who is a fundamentalist. Accepting literally what is written in the Bible, he concluded that Jesus was either the Christ, or a liar. Since his Sunday-school teachers told him that the latter is unacceptable, he saw no alternative to the orthodox Christian creed. On the eve of my "conversion" to new geology, I was facing the same dilemma. How could my teacher, the person whom I loved and respected, be utterly wrong? How could I continue to love and respect him if I was to be convinced that he was wrong? I did not explore a possible alternative that Jesus was neither Christ nor a liar.

I wrote a whole chapter in my autobiographical opus, The Challenger at Sea, on the circumstances leading to my conviction that my teacher was wrong: the continents have moved, if not drifted. I was then almost 40 years of age, but I only began to acquire maturity in judgment. I found that I still loved and respected my teacher, perhaps more than ever because of a realization that none of us are infallible. We could not be right on everything. Science progresses with falsification, falsification of what we have learned. If we do not accept what has been falsified, we do not accept the progress of science. Painful as it was, I did accept what I had to, namely, I had been wrong in rejecting the theory which was to revolutionize the earth science.

In hindsight, I am convinced that I was able to make the switch because I had been Americanized. It was ironic that my flexibility caused some of my colleagues to accuse me as a traitor to the "cause;" I was pictured as an opportunist who jumped belatedly onto a fashionable bandwagon. The leaders of the opposition to my hypothesis on Chinese geology are favorite pupils of Professor T. K. Huang. Huang is a great man, open-minded, but his proteges could not bring themselves away from what they had learned from the beloved master. They are never to be accused of being traitors to the "cause," and they are never to be pictured as opportunists who jump belatedly onto a fashionable bandwagon.

I am personally convinced that the Confucian ethics of loyalty to teacher is one of the reasons why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese. But there were also authorities in the West, and there were also the Christian values of loyalty. There were popes, and there were tyrants who also demanded absolute obedience from their subjects. Galileo was even silenced by a pope, but he was succeeded by Newton. Why was Newton an European, not a Chinese?

The Idiosyncrasy of a Historicity

Rome had Caesar, but he was murdered. The Holy Roman Empire was founded by a Pepin, but the empire of fighting kings, dukes, and barons all but disintegrated soon after the demise of its founder. Even popes, with their centralistic catholic ideology and power of excommunication, failed to extinguish the rebellious spirit which finally surfaced in the renaissance and reformation. The Copernican Revolution was a manifestation of the democratic faith that we are all fallible and prone to error. Galileo may have been silenced, but he never did accept the dictate of the authority like his Chinese counterparts did. The Bull on Papal Infallibility has become no more than a "bull" and it was promulgated far too late to stem the advance of science.

The secret of the traditional Chinese success in enforcing authority, in my opinion, has to be traced to an idiosyncratic development in language. For reasons unknown, Chinese invented and kept their graphic symbols as words, whereas the people of the West invented alphabets and phonetic writings. This, in my opinion, is the most fundamental historicity of China as opposed to that of the West.

Languages were spoken long before they were written; spoken words are sounds. The oldest written words are Sumerian, dated back to 3000 B.C. or earlier. The first words are pictograms or ideograms, and they are now called graphs by linguists. Those oldest graphs have a specific, commonly monosyllabic, pronunciation, and they convey the specific meaning of the phoneme in the spoken language.3

This Sumerian practice of using identical graphs to designate spoken words with the same pronunciation but different meanings is adopted by the Akkadian and the Egyptians: the same graph was used for two or more homophonic expressions. Eventually a graph could only be defined only by its phonetic value, while the signification of the graph became obscured. After the graph was completely divorced from the original meaning of the word, the largely logographic Sumerian language became the syllabic languages of the Middle East. At more advanced stages of evolution, graphs became consonants as in Semitic languages and alphabets as in Greek and Roman. Descendents of those are the modern phonographic languages of the West, where individual syllables or alphabets have no meaningful significance.

The fluttering of the butterfly wings in the "butterfly effect" of the chaos theory started when the Chinese took a different path in making their words. The Chinese did try out the Sumerian approach of using the same graph to designate two homophones of completely different meanings, and such an approach is called jiajie () 4 For example, the graph , pronounced lai, was originally a word for wheat, but it was adopted to denote the verb to come, apparently because the two words had the same pronunciation. Now another word has been invented to designate wheat, and the symbol for lai is used exclusively for the verb to come. The Chinese prefer to have one word, one meaning, and one pronunciation. They tried not to use the same graph to designate homophones of different meanings,while they carried out two other experiments of word-making.

The first has been called zhuanzhu (): one graph was modified slightly into two similar (but not identical) graphs to designate two words of different meanings, but of slightly different pronunciations. The graph , for example, is the word for old and is pronounced lao, but is modified to make a new graph for another word examination which is pronounced kao. Zhuanzhu has not been an effective approach and few Chinese words belong to this category.

The second approach is called xingsheng (), or phonetization. They combine two or more graphs to make a new graph, which has a pronunciation identical to that of one of the graphs; the other graph is a silent signific companion of the phonetic component. For example the combination word for the (Tong Tree) consists of two parts: and . The Chinese graph is pronounced mu, signifying wood or woody. The Chinese graph is pronounced tong , and it is the word for together or togetherness. The signific graph is the silent partner in the combination, whereas its phonetic companion imparts no meaning but it tells us how this compound-word is pronounced in the spoken language. The combination word is pronounced tong, not mu-tong, so that new combination words remain monosyllabic, but the signific component identifies the graph as a word for a tree. The Chinese word for copper also consists of two parts, and . The silent partner is , pronounced jin, and classifying copper as a metal, the phonetizer is the same tong. The word is pronounced tong, and not jin-tong. Homophonic words cannot be distinguished by their pronunciation, but they are distinguished by their visual appearance; words have thus retained their individual identity even if they are homophonic. The introduction of the xingsheng practice was a late development: few Chinese words of the Shang Dynasty belonged to this category, but xinsheng became a common practice in the Zhou Dynasty after 1200 B.C.

The Two-Edge Sword of a Dephonetized Writing

It would have been ideal that there could be one phoneme for each graph, but this is not possible. The Chinese had some 50,000 graphs, of which some 3000 or 4000 are commonly used, but there are at most hundreds of ways to pronounce a syllable, even if intonations are introduced. This was the reason why the Chinese had to introduce xingsheng words. The Occidental solution of making polysyllabic words seems more elegant. Adopting the phonetic values of both components of a graph to pronounce a word, such as lugal for king, the Sumerian words became polysyllabic.3 Graphs adopted for conjugations and declensions were further added to root-graphs so that most of the written words in the Occidental languages could become polysyllabic. Grammatical graphs in Chinese are never combined with root-signs; they are called "empty words" (), but they could retain their individual visual experience and pronunciation. Chinese could thus keep their graphs, simple or composite, purely monosyllabic.

Paradoxically, the initial Chinese effort to phonetize words has led to its dephonetization. Spoken languages are dynamic. Consequently a written language, based upon phonetization of sounds in spoken language, has to change constantly. However, in a written language where words are defined by their visual appearance, there is no longer the need to change the composition of combined words in order to effect an adaptation to new sounds. My own surname serves as an example to illustrate the dephonetization of the Chinese writing. I am known to all my American and European friends as Hsü. I was introduced once to a Mr. Houk, a Malaysian of Chinese origin in Sarawak. I noted that his name, as indicated by the name plate on his desk,is , exactly the same as the Chinese character for my surname. I protested, but I was told that houk is the pronunciation of the same in his dialect. Only then, did I appreciate the fact that the visual shape of the word is fossilized, but its pronunciation is not; the symbol has acquired various phonetizations in different places.

After four thousand years of such a language practice, the Chinese writing is completely logographic. Each graph has its specific meaning, but its pronunciation is different in each dialect. Meanwhile the other languages of the world have become phonographic when graphs are adopted to designate a particular phoneme, a consonant or a vowel. Syllables or alphabets acquire a specific pronunciation, but not specific meaning. Starting from the same beginning of using pictographs to represent spoken words, the practices of the East and West deviated more and more. The Chinese written language has become primarily visual and only secondarily acoustical, while the Occidental writings are phonetizations of spoken words.

Chinese tend to think of language as something being written; our language is the writing. Language to a Westerner is spoken. There were thousands of dialects in China, of course, the Beijing dialect (Mandarin), the Nanjing dialect, the Canton dialect, etc. But dialects are dialects. The Swiss understand this paradox; they will tell you that there is no schwitzerdüütsch, only Baslerdüütsch, Berndüütsch, Zuridüütsch, etc. The Swiss of Germanic origin have to adopt the writing of Germany as their official writing in order to retain a consistency in grammar and spelling. The Chinese have no such problem. The Chinese writing is Chinese, not Mandarin nor Cantonese. Chinese cannot write down their dialects in different scripts like the Swiss do, because the Chinese writing is not phonetic. This one language for one people is written, but not spoken, by all the Chinese. An idiosyncrasy in history that the Chinese invented xingsheng permitted the Chinese to have one written language and one only. Looking back, this development is probably one of the most important elements in the historicity of China. When foreign invaders came to China, they had no writing. In order to govern, they had to acquire a writing, namely the Chinese writing. Eventually they forgot their own language which was only spoken, they had to learn the written Chinese and they began to talk in one of the Chinese dialects which can be harmonized with the written language. The barbarians became absorbed or assimilated by the people they conquered.

With the practice of writing their words phonetically, the history of the Occident has taken a very different turn. The Germanic hordes descended onto the Roman Empire. Some, like their Asiatic counterparts, adopted the spoken and written language of the conquered, but the Latin was replaced by different modern languages: they are the French in France, the Wallons in Belgium, the Lombards in Italy, the Burgunders in Switzerland, etc. Others kept their own languages, and it was no big deal to invent phonetic writings of their own. Every young Swiss has no problem to write his Baslerdüütsch or Zuridüütsch. With the phonetization of writing, a person does not even have to share his language with his relatives in the next city; he certainly feels no compulsion to bow to the authority of a foreigner who uses a strange language. The phonetic languages have served the purpose of being diverse and, at the same time, divisive. People drifted away from one another and lost the sense of a common heritage when their spoken languages became formalized in different written phonetic scripts The well-known Chinese Nobel laureate, Yang Zhenling, pointed out that China had made good progress in science, before they were overtaken by the Europeans after 1400 A.D. Thc timing coincides more or less with the invention of printing by Gutenberg. First books in German, French, English, Italian, etc. were printed in the fifteenth century shortly before the Copernican Revolution. It is perhaps no coincidence that the renaissance, the birth of modern science, and the separation of the national states in Europe came concurrently with the abolishment of Latin as a common written language

With the diversity of written languages, Europeans could think freely and become rebellious to the central authority who had dictated in Latin. Thomas Aquinas may have been the greatest scholar of the Medieval Europe, but he was not an Englishman, and Francis Bacon did not suffer from a sense of betrayal when he proposed a different way of searching for truth. Nor did Copernicus worry about being sacrilegious when he proposed a theory of planetary motion completely different from that of Ptolemy. In China, however, there could be no escape. Through an idiosyncrasy in history, having adopted a different logic in constructing their writing, China has trodden down a different path from that of Europe. This quirk of fate has led to an inescapable acceptance of the Confucian dogma. The teaching of Confucius cannot be falsified. The historical inevitability why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese seems to have been rooted in an idiosyncrasy of a linguistic development.

The Integration of a Logographic into a Phonetic Language

"Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons, and electrons," Richard Feynman once said, "while in daily life we talked about men and history, or beauty and hope."5 This discrepancy is an outgrowth of the development that the literature of modern science is written not only in a phonetic language, but also in another logographic language called mathematics.

Few are bothered with the etymological origin of scientific terms in a phonetic language. A new term, expressed by syllables of no meaning, expresses an original idea, a new concept to promote our understanding of nature. Steve Hawking, for example, attributed to the rise of modern science to the invention of the concept and the precise definition of the word acceleration by Galileo and Newton.6 The Chinese word for acceleration consists of two graphs, , meaning increase and speed respectively, and there was no convention in written Chinese to ascertain if the two graphs should mean an indeterminate increase of speed as the phrase is understood in daily conversations, or an increase measurable in changes of speed per unit-time increment. It is difficult to communicate the meaning of a new concept, when the new expression is not a new word, but a combination of old words of fuzzy significance.

More important than the nature of the language is probably the fact that loan words are easily introduced into an alphabetic language. The scientific language consists of a combination of phonetic words and symbols of representation or of abbreviation from another language called mathematics. The symbols such as:

They are graphs like Chinese words; they are not phonetic and their meaning, properly "fossilized," could be universally understood. The language of mathematics makes very good "bookkeeping:" Its grammar and vocabulary could be manipulated to express precise quantitative relations which are falsifiable by experiments. It has been difficult to integrate mathematics into classic Chinese. I appreciated the difficulty when I was asked recently by an editor of a popular periodical to delete-all mathematical equations in a science article written for laymen, because such an inclusion is not possible in the text which was to be printed in the classical format of writing from the upper-right-hand corner downward and line after line leftward.

Newton was helped by his invention of the calculus to express his theory of gravitation. Electricity and magnetism were explained by the Maxwellian wave equations. Einstein studied Riemann geometry to formulate his general theory of relativity. Mathematics has done wonders for science, and scientists like Lord Kelvin acquire eventually an arrogance that truth can only be expressed in the language of mathematical physics.

A phonetic word composed of parts which do not have to impart meaning to the word has the advantage of conveying an idea which could contradict daily-life experiences. Relations expressible by mathematical symbols could also ignore the reality. Bertrand Russell once lampooned mathematicians as those who are working on something when they do not know what they are doing, and getting an answer which they do not know if it is true. Mathematics is not science, but only a language spoken by scientists. The language has become less and less comprehensible to most lay persons. Paul Feyerabend provoked with an unorthodox view that science invents postulates to contradict common sense.7 In fact, modern physics is a collection of paradoxes, starting with Planck's recognition of quantum action. De Broglie gave us the wave/particle duality of light, Schrödinger his cat, and the physics of light became totally unpicturable. Heisenberg invented the uncertain principle, with the same Planck's constant to connect two uncertainties such as momentum/position or energy/time. Then there was Einstein's twin paradox and Minkowski's space-time coordinate. Relativists divorced themselves from their daily-life experiences when their equations yielded mathematical solutions that there could neither be simultaneity, nor past, present or future. Time became "just a coordinate," and to think about the time before the Big Bang is considered just as silly as to ask "for a point on the earth at 91 degrees north latitude."6

I have great respect for the achievements by scientists during the second half of the 20th century, but they are mostly technological achievements like the Chinese inventions of the last two millennia. What have we done for science? We spend billions looking for the elementary particles, and we have a host of fermions and bosons, but have we really falsified the postulate by Isaac Newton? Newton wrote in his Opticks:

Now the smallest particles of matter cohere by the strongest attractors, and compose bigger particles of weaker virtue: and many of these may cohere and compose bigger particles whose virtue is still weaker, and so on for diverse successions, until the progression ends in 1he biggest particles on which the operations in chemistry, and the colours of natural bodies depend, and which by cohering compose bodies of a sensible magnitude.

Could the fermions and bosons be the smallest Newtonian particles and the aggregates of such particles? Steven Weinberg told us that the Newtonian approach had reached a dead-end. Or is that a dead-end only for those who speak in the language of mathematics? Could we understand modern physics in plain words again, phonetic or logographic?

Zero or Nothing

There are some fundamental flaws in the mathematical language, if it is spoken by those who are not accustomed to think precisely. Mathematicians know the difference between zero and nothing, but the distinction is not sufficiently emphasized when we are taught physics. We find equations in chemistry, describing beta-decay as natural radioactivity of spontaneous disintegration: it seems that, out of nothing but from time to time, a potassium nucleus emits spontaneously an electron and changes itself into a calcium nucleus, as represented by the reaction:

K40 ® Ca40 + e- (1a)

In textbooks of particle physics the beta-decay is described as the decay of neutron n¡ into proton p+, electron e- and an antineutrino

no ® p+ + e- +
(2a)

I was told that the last term in Eq. (2a) is a "book-keeping device." When the beta decay was first discovered a serious problem threatened to undermine the fabric of physics. The charges are conserved during the decay, but the momentum was apparently not conserved. Faced with the observation, physicists had to make a choice: "Either momentum conservation for elementary particles had to be abandoned, or something was being emitted that could not be observed, but which carried off just the right of momentum to make everything to work out right. One of the "czars" of theoretical physics in the 1930s, Wolfgang Pauli, declared that that the second alternative was the only acceptable one. Later, Fermi coined the name neutrino - Italian for "little neutron" - for the unobserved that must have been "emitted in the reaction."8

Keeping the books on the conservation of the energy balanced, physicist could calculate the energy of the neutrino by rearranging the terms of Eq. (2a):

® p + + e - - n o (2b)

"Either-or" propositions are typical tricks by politicians to obscure other viable alternatives. The boy who fails to see the emperor's new clothes could suggest a third solution to the problem that "threatened to undermine the fabric of physics." Instead of an unobservable particle emitted in a spontaneous decay, the neutron may have acquired energy and momentum through the capture or collision with a neutrino, or

no + ® p+ + e- (3a)

Time in the language of mathematical physics is not particulate, it has no mass and is not definable in terms of energy, so that time does not enter into the equations (1) and (2) which only consider the conservation of charge, of energy and of momentum when particles interact. Time is nothing in equations (1) and (2). But time is not nothing, time is more than a scale, time is a commodity. I came to the postulate of a particulate time because I was thinking in a language spoken in daily life. The word time (Zeit in German) is derived from the Indogermanic dai, which signifies divisible; daily-life experiences tell us that time is divisible into parts. The divisible consists of indivisibles, and a logical semantic deduction is that there should be smallest indivisible elements or particles in each part (Teil in German), and those particles (Teilchen in German) are the atoms of Greek philosophers, or the chronon ( c ) proposed by me to designate the elementary particle of time.9

In order to the keep books balanced, elementary particles in modern physics are defined by their charge, mass/energy, and angular momentum, and we have thus many kinds of the so-called elementary particles. In viewing elementary particles as one basic kind of objects which could carry variable charge, possess variable mass/energy, or have various angular momentum, then the elementary particles in particle physics are either various manifestations of chronons, or they are various aggregates of chronons.

The one constant in modem physics which is involved in various particle-interactions is the Planck's constant, which is a quantum action. In considering particles actions, they are not only definable by the mass, charge and spins, they should also be deemed by a temporal term such as frequency or period of particles in wave motion. The time represented by a quantum action is energy divided by the Planck's constant (h). Time became a particulate property, when quantum action (h) was defined as a particle called quanton.10 Time is thus not nothing in equations balancing books on energy and momentum. There is the waiting time for a decay process: a radioactive atom, for example, starts to decay because a passage of time has elapsed. There is also the duration of particle capturing or interaction and the duration is for example the wave period in case of photoelectricity.

Introducing the concept of an elementary particle definable by a temporal variable, I suggested that natural radioactivity is a manifestation of an action which I had called "chronon-capture,"9 or

K40+ c ® Ca40 + e- (1b)
no + c ® p+ + e- (3b)

Now we can play a mathematical game of comparing Eqs. (3a) and (3b) and conclude

c = (4)

Translated into daily-life languages spoken words, Eq. (4) states that the chronon captured in the beta decay is a neutrino.

Physicists have not chosen neutrino-activation to balance their books on beta-decay. The language of mathematical physicists seems to have a peculiar grammar. To postulate the emission of antineutrinos, or anti-matter to keep the books balanced is science. The postulate of an action, or a neutrino-capture, was not made, because one should not "speculate" on the possibility of an action which cannot be verified. This mentality of book-keeping may have been psychologically related to the Anglo-Saxon judicial system: criminal defendants are tolerated to tell white lies, but the evidence of the prosecution witness has to consist of verifiable facts before they are admissible to the court; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

That the emission of an electron, as in beta-decay, could be induced by the capture of a neutrino is the basis for experiments to detect neutrinos. A Brookhaven team conducted experiments to measure the solar neutrino flux in the Homestake gold mine in South Dakota. The neutrino target consists of C2Cl4. Solar neutrinos interact with 37Cl to create an electron and 37A. The latter has a half-life of 35 days and its creation can be detected before it decays by electron-capture to form 37Cl again. Is this experiment a sufficient demonstration that radioactive decays are not spontaneous "tunneling effects," but are induced by chronon-capture, or, in the case of beta-decay, neutrino-capture? If so, do we still need antineutrinos and/or other purely "book-keeping" devices?

Equal to or Equivalent to

The sign of equality in mathematics could be dangerously misleading. The Chinese did not use the symbol in their writing, but two words , signifying equivalent to. This is in fact more appropriate in some instances. When we enter a store, for example, with two francs and come out with a loaf of bread, we understand that the worth of the bread is equivalent to the value of two francs. Nobody ever think that two coins are mysteriously converted into a load of bread. Yet what do you think of the famous Einstein Equation? With the expression

E=mc² (5)

we were taught that matter is annihilated and is converted into energy. Something material is changed into nothingness, and out of that annihilated material comes the tremendous nuclear energy. The postulate is taken for granted, probably because every Occidental child was taught of the fairy story of phoenix coming out of ashes. We Chinese tend to think differently. What is not observable could be real, or even substantial. Chinese use the expression sheng-qi to designate anger: when one is angry, there is not only a change of state, but also the production of an invisible substance called qi. Now anger is real, and qi prompts a person to act, even violently. Who can deny that anger is an action, which is an integration of units of quantum-actions (alias chronons), or that qi has accumulated to such an extent to compel the person to act angrily?

Equation (5) could be viewed as just another effort to balance the books: the split atoms have a smaller mass than that of the parent atom before the fission, because a tremenous quantity of particles are released in the forms of neutrinos, heat, light, X-rays, etc., the last of which is incidentally the trigger for thermonuclear weapons.

When we keep our accounts, we write:
1 loaf of bread: 2 francs
Or we say, in English or in Chinese, that two francs (F) are equivalent to a loaf of bread (B), but nobody are foolhardy enough to state

1 B = 2 F

Financial statements are numerically correct, and they are falsifiable; they could be compared to good science. On the other hand, financial statements such as income-tax returns may have kale relevance to truth. If we are not satisfied by the emptiness of bookkeeping, and allow ourselves to find meaning in the Newtonian physics, we could state:

An aggregate (with measurable mass) of elementary particles (chronons) was a part of an atom and this aggregate is disaggregated into elementary panicles (photons and possibly other chronons) with the mass of individual particles too small to be measurable, white the binding energy which has kept the particles aggregated is converted into the kinetic energy of dispersed particles.

For one who prefers a mathematic language with symbols, we could have equation:

ml= m2 (6)
El =E2= m1c²= m2c² (7)

The three signs of equality (=) in Eq. (6) do not have the same meaning, thc first and the last are abbreviations for equal to, but the middle sign signifies equivalent to.

In their preoccupation to keep the account balanced, some begin to forget the original purpose of scientific pursuit. The ultimate in arrogance by scientists was exemplified by a recent treatise on the physics of time, stating11:

The mistake of pre-relativity physics was to identify time too closely with human experience...Relativity physics has shifted the moving present out of the superstructure of the universe, into the minds of human beings, where it belongs. . In the absence of an acceptable theory of the mind in physics, any discussion of physical time must necessarily exclude the consideration of the now, and the apparent forward flow of time, because these are meaningless concepts within the context of ordinary space-time.

It is very difficult for a geologist to accept this edict, when the now is the key to his past, and the past existed long before there were human minds.

The Mandarin Mentality of Modern Scientific Establishment

Toulmin and Goodfield lamented that "Newton's dynamics or Maxwell's electromagnetism is purchased at the price of a certain detachment from the world of fact."12 The price, as Richard Feynmen observed, is that the details of real-life experience have to be divorced from the fundamental physical laws. Yes, everything in physical science can be ultimately phrased in terms of "a lot of protons, neutrons, and electrons," and of their motions and changes. But what can the language of mathematic physicists tell us about men and history, or beauty and hope. Those entities are irrelevant to scientific truth, but Feynman5 asked:

"Which end is nearer to God? Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws?"

My favorite story about scientists is the anecdote about a Webstüber (mentally retarded) of Basel: It was midnight, and the Webstüber was seen walking back and forth on the market square, in search of his lost keys. He was assisted by a sympathetic policeman. After half an hour of a vain effort, he was asked where he might have lost his keys.
"Oh, I lost them in the dark alley over there?"
"Why don't you go over there to search?"
"It is too dark out there. I can search better where the street lamps are well lit."

Scientists have invented a language and can only tell stories with this language. Its limited vocabulary has no words for beauty and hope, and they are thus restricted in their search for a truth which excludes beauty and hope.l lit ."

Paul Feyerabend sent me a manuscript not long before his death, expressing his opposition to the European integration. He read a draft of my manuscript Why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese, and he concurred, viewing the homogenization of Europe as the beginning of end of the Occidental culture. Feyerabend has been a voice in the desert in making polemics against the scientific establishment. I had been angry once when I learned that he would lead "three cheers to the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the text books and an account of Genesis included."13 Later, I was no longer angry at Feyerabend when I had to persuade a good friend, an eminent evolutionary paleontologist elected to the U. S. National Academy, not to co-author a book on evolution with a creationist; we both understood all too well the inevitable consequence of persecution and retributions from his colleagues.

When I was a young man entering university, I never hesitated in my idealism to choose a study in science. I was an idealist, a missionary, electing to devote my life for the society, for the mankind. Science has been, as I thought, a blessing for the mankind. Science has given us technology, and technology has given us the Industrial Revolution which wiped out famines, the wonder drugs which wiped out epidemics, and the terrifying weapons which stopped us from fighting hot wars. Fifty years later, on the eve of my retirement, I begin to see things differently. Technology has given us slums, unemployment, and Tschernobyl, without eradicating the famines in the Third World. Technology has given us gerontology and population explosion, without preventing the spread of the AIDS epidemics in Africa and Southern Asia. Technology has given us terrifying and less terrifying weapons, and people, as of this writing, are still being massacred in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia. And science has been enslaved by technology.

The scientific establishment which recognizes no language other than its own has become in the words of Bakunin "the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and elitist of all regimes."14 Science is one ideology among many, and the language of science is one among many. Feyerabend in his warning against totalitarianism in religion, added that "this caveat applies not only to religious leaders such as Reverend Jones (which dictated the Jonestown killings) but also to secular leaders such as philosophers, Nobel Price Winners, Marxists, liberals, hitmen of foundations and their educational representatives: the young must be strengthened against being imposed upon by so-called teachers." "Ideologies," as Feyerabend noted7, " are marvelous when used in the company of other ideologies. They become boring and doctrinaire as soon as their merits lead to the removal of their opponents."

I have a friend who was an eminent scholar in particle physics. I asked him why should they spend billions to build the super-collider, and his answer was:
" We build accelerators like the people in the Middle Age built their cathedrals; we are building an edifice of beauty."

One of my young relatives has an artistic temperament, but he decided against a study of physics and became a musician. I wondered what was he looking for, and his reply was:

" We musicians are searching for truth."

Many young people today are idealists like I was, but they do not choose a career in .science. They are not interested in superficial edifices of beauty; they are searching for a truth which cannot be found in a language that has no relevance to men and history, that defines time as the illusion of human mind, and that has expurgated beauty and hope from its vocabulary. I wonder if the young rebels of our generation have provided an answer to the question Why Isaac Newton was not a Chinese: the scientific revolution did not occur in China, because the truly talented became poets, painters, and creative writers; they chose not to be stifled by the Confucian academic tradition.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Red Dragon Rising 红龙起舞 - 将要到来的与中共国的决战

Book Link 图书链锁: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Dragon-Rising-Communist-Military/dp/0895262584

陈凯一语:

自由世界的自由的人们与中共党奴朝的决战只是早晚的问题。 你在这个即将到来的决战中站在哪里? 婊子与牌坊是不能并立的。

Kai Chen's Words:

The final conflict between the Free World led by America and the Chinese Party-State is only a matter of where and when. Where do you stand in this mortal struggle? Trying to straddle two boats sailing toward opposite directions is delusional and a sign of insanity.


-----------------------------------------------

Red Dragon Rising

红龙起舞 - 将要到来的与中共国的决战


The Coming War With China (RDR), is a strategic-level investigation, with operational undertones, of the possibilities inherent in the first 30-or-so days of a hypothetical war between the Peoples Republic of China and a US-led counter-alliance. The time frame is the not-too-distant future, roughly between now and the end of 2014. On the Chinese side, the viewpoint of the player is that of Peking's top-rung national leadership. On the US side, the opposing player represents the top-rung military commander in the Western Pacific theater. The game is easily adaptable for solitaire play.

The system – given we're dealing with events that haven't happened and therefore can't be studied in detail after the fact – has been crafted to present the war as a unitary vision rather than a strictly sequenced process. The action can alternately telescope or expand, sometimes moving ahead in whip snake lunges, at other times decelerating to dream-like slow motion. The system is more quantum mechanics than Newtonian, more Escher than Rockwell. Its presents a time-space inter-flow that can only be grasped in totality by the human mind once play is over and the entire war can be looked back on and chronicled in a reconstructed linear fashion (much like day-to-day reality).

Three initial assumptions are as follows. First, the Chinese are cast – not unreasonably, we think – as the aggressors. Put in terms as politically correct as possible: they're the "revisionist power" here, the nation wanting to overturn the present-day status quo in the Western Pacific: they're conducting a strategic offensive. Second, the war inevitably starts over Taiwan, as that island is the unavoidably the first strategic block Peking must neutralize on the way to becoming East Asia's hegemon. Third, the war will not begin with a nuclear attack; though the danger of that kind of escalation may not be far off.

Most ground units in the game represent brigades ("brigade combat teams" or "BCT" for the US). The exceptions are: 1) the Singaporean army is entirely represented by just one unit-counter; and 2) the Taiwanese and Philippine armies are represented by their corps components.

Aircraft units are mostly represented by mixed-type combat wing formations, though only one aircraft type – the predominant one for each such wing – is shown on each counter. Long range bombers have their own mono-type units that can't combine operations with the other tactical air wings in the game.

Ship units mostly represent mission-oriented groupings of vessels (Surface Action Groups). Aircraft carriers and cruise missile attack submarines each represent just one such vessel of those types. Other submarines are represented in groups called "Subrons." On the area map, each inch equals approximately 100 miles.



Novel Link 小说链锁: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6426994-larry-bond-s-red-dragon-rising

Republished in Command Magazine Japan #92 in 2010.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

World's Most Irresponsible Power is Coming in for a Landing 中党奴朝专制强权即将垮台的威胁

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

当中共党奴朝频临灭亡的时候,也就是世界面临极大威胁的时候。 邪恶绝不会悄悄地隐退。 垂死的挣扎即将来临。

Kai Chen's Words:

When China's communist regime is about to collapse as all signs point to such occurrence soon to come, it will exert a last mortal struggle to stay alive. Such a moment is the most dangerous to the world peace. Evil will never just fade away without bloodshed.


-------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, August 10, 2009

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING

World's most irresponsible power is coming in
for a landing

中党奴朝专制强权即将垮台的威胁


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/s0792_08_16.asp

There’s little good news for the world economy. The Fed is now cautioning a slowed recovery if not a double-dip recession. The Euro is again under pressure from its debt-ridden members. The UK is undertaking serious but politically dangerous surgery against its welfare state. Germany continues to pump out subsidized exports as though there is no tomorrow. Although still growing rapidly, India is facing increased inflationary pressures. Dubai’s collapse may be the forerunner of other misadventures in the gluttonous Persian Gulf states.

But events in China might prove to be the most threatening for a world scene already crowded with danger. Not the least is Beijing’s refusal to cooperate with Washington and the Europeans and Japan in reining in the prospect of the erratic tyrannies in North Korea and Iran moving toward nuclear weapons.

China at once has become the poster child for economic development and the chief miscreant in producing disequilibrium in world’s finances. All this comes as the Beijing leadership heads into a dangerous transition to a new generation of leadership with its rapidly strengthening military increasingly publicly rambunctious.

In the welter of statistics, always particularly suspect with China, there are increasing anomalies. Foremost is growing evidence that China’s phenomenal growth rate is falling. Whether truth or fiction, a legend has arisen that only continued rapid expansion can insure political stability among its 1.3 billion people. That’s because the Communist Party is now devoid of all its mystique and dependent on suppression of any dissent.

The magic number to keep the bicycle economy moving forward without toppling has been the always notoriously inadequate gross national product of 8 percent minimum growth. According to official figures, China is nowhere near that now.

But the good news in China is often bad news — long term. For example, Beijing’s trade surplus grew to $28 billion plus in July, adding to its staggering hoard of more than $2.2 trillion dollars. A big chunk of that was a reflection of the U.S. June trade deficit of almost $50 billion. But more than anything else, it represents continued export subsidies and currency manipulation. On the eve of the last G-20 summit in June, China promised it would permit the yuan to appreciate. But the currency has gone up only .08 percent to the dollar, with each month Beijing does not move making any adjustment more and more catastrophic for its domestic economy.

At the same time, Beijing says it is pulling in its horns on its massive 2008 “stimulation”, a defense against the world financial crash. One reason is that it did nothing to boost consumption, only a third of China’s gross national product. Instead, it has created — among other problems — an enormous real estate bubble. Residential real estate prices have risen 68 percent in the first quarter of 2010. More than 60 million urban apartments had no electricity bill for six months indicating one in four new apartments is standing empty because prices are beyond the means of any but China’s most prosperous. Yet construction is continuing both by private builders, the huge government companies, and some local and regional governments.

This speculation is explained by a recent Credit Suisse study that says 30 percent of China’s gross national product is hidden, 80 percent of that by the wealthiest, further exacerbating the growing disparities of income, between urban and rural, and within the urban centers. The speculators are apparently counting on the leadership, in the crunch choosing continued backing of artificially high rates of growth rather than suffer more of the growing disputes over wages and land seizures — and increased unemployment and under-employment.

But threatening that “solution” is the increasingly precarious banking situation. It turns out Chinese banks have been removing debt, placing it in “securitized” packages and selling it as investments. Have you heard that story some place before? Fitch Ratings estimates new loans in the first half of the year were nearly 30 percent more than the official figure at a time when regulators already expressed public concern about bad loans in record-breaking lending. Beijing regulators have ordered the banks to suck it back in, but they have continued to sell the products. Furthermore, if they “reabsorbed” these loans, they would be violating their reserve requirements and would, presumably, have to go to the market for more funds which could unnerve savers and investors.

In instance after instance, pronouncements by President Hu Jintao or Prime Minister Wen Jiabao have taken account of massive problems — for example, a new edict to close down the worst energy despoilers. But there is growing questioning of the announced proposed reforms as empty rhetoric. A fawning foreign media adds to the confusion often created by equally superficial expert analysis. [A recent Carnegie Endowment article gives former Maximum Leader Deng Xiaoping insights that once were only attributed to The Great Leader, Mao Tsetung.]

It’s been said that the main difference between a soft landing and a hard landing when economies go wrong is the extent to which the pilot is still at the controls. That may be the test in China as well.

------------------------------------------------------------

Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@cox.net), writes the 'Follow the Money' column for The Washington Times on the convergence of international politics, business and economics. He is also a contributing editor for WorldTribune.com and EAST-ASIA-INTEL.com. An Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, Mr. Sanders is a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Obama is America's new Jim Jones 奥巴马是美国的新“人民庙”庙主



陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

1978年的琼斯城“人民庙”屠庙惨案有多于900信徒丧生。 将基督教义与共产/社会主义用强力搅拌在一起是吉姆. 琼斯控制信徒的有效手段。 死亡(他杀与自杀)是这种行为、思维与信仰模式的必然后果。 今天奥巴马也试图采用琼斯的卑鄙手段洗脑美国民众以达其政治野心。 热爱自由的人们必须奋起反击。

Kai Chen's Words:

In 1978, more than 900 people (many were children and women) were murdered in "People's Temple", Jones Town in Guyana. Jim Jones, using his combination of Christianity and Communism, was trying to create a "Heaven on Earth" by brainwashing and enslaving his followers. Death by murder/suicide is the only result of such a deadly combination with its moral confusion/perversion. Today Obama with his "Black Liberation Theology" is doing the same to American people - confusing, brainwashing and enslaving them into zombie-like creatures walking toward a hopeless and deadly morass. Freedom-loving people must be aware of such a scheme and fight back to restore America by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


---------------------------------------------------

August 15, 2010

Obama is America's new Jim Jones

奥巴马是美国的新“人民庙”庙主


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/caruba/100815

By Alan Caruba

On November 18, 1978, the world was shocked to learn that more than 900 members of the People's Temple had committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. They took their lives at the urging of Jim Jones, the Temple's founder.

Until 9/11, it was the single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster and the tragedy still ranks high among the largest mass suicides in history. Jones had been a charismatic preacher who founded the Temple in the 1950s in Indiana, later moving it to California.

It is increasingly evident with every passing day that Barack Obama is America's Jim Jones, undermining the U.S. Constitution while urging Americans to drink his Kool-Aid lies. Need a reminder? Here are a few:

Stimulus Act Kool-Aid
Obamacare Kool-Aid
Financial Reform Kool-Aid
Reach out to Muslims Kool-Aid
Mosque at Ground Zero Kool-Aid
Amnesty for illegal Aliens Kool-Aid
Bailout General Motors Kool-Aid
Cash-for-Clunkers Kool-Aid
Union Card Check Kool-Aid
Green Jobs Kool-Aid
Close Down Gitmo Kool-Aid
Climate Change Kool-Aid
Regulate Carbon Dioxide Kool-Aid
Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Kool-Aid

Americans are resisting the behemoth of the federal government under Obama's control. The Tea Party movement is evidence that the American spirit is far from spent. Many states are joining together in legal suits to oppose Obamacare and to demand the federal government shut down the border traffic that is breeding crime and other costs.

It is a life or death struggle for America. Niall Ferguson, a British historian and author of "The Ascent of Money," recently gave a lecture for the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia. He warned that "In the history of empires the end is abrupt and those that rely on them need to be ready."

I have often referred to America as an empire and so have others, given its global military presence, the global reliance on the U.S. dollar as the standard against which other currencies are measured, its moral stature as a defender of human rights and advocate for freedom, and its vast worldwide cultural impact.

"Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly in Washington," said Ferguson, "as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $1.47 trillion, about ten percent of GDP for the second year running." He further warned that "half the U.S. federal debt in public hands is in the hands of foreign creditors. Of that, a fifth (22%) is held by the monetary authorities of the People's Republic of China, down from 27% in July last year."

"The United States is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting," said Ferguson.

The indicators are, however, that on November 2nd, the midterm elections will provide a self-correction IF the power in Congress changes from the Democrats to the Republican Party. It's a very big IF because, short of anything less, the damage that President Obama can inflict is still significant. Even so, some of his more noxious programs can be defunded.

The President and the Democrats in Congress are possibly the most anti-energy administration in the history of the nation. Everything in our economy and our lives is dependent on access to plentiful and affordable energy whether it comes from oil, coal, natural gas or hydroelectricity.

The Obama administration has blandished billions on "alternative," "clean" or "green" energy in the form of solar, wind, and biofuels. Nothing about any of these options represents a reliable and viable power source to replace or provide the nation's huge energy requirements.

The most rogue federal agency in U.S. history, the Environmental Protection Agency, is pursuing the power to regulate "greenhouse gases" despite having no authorization to do so. The justification offered is the totally discredited "global warming" theory. Other nations that have invested in solar or wind power only to discover that neither provides sufficient energy and both eliminate jobs in the process.

That, I suggest, is the very reason why the Obama administration wants to impose them on the nation while at the same time gutting the oil and coal industries.

The moratoriums imposed on the drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, despite two court injunctions against them, will cost the Gulf Coast states an estimated 8,000 jobs or more, nearly $500 million in wages, more than $2.1 billion in economic activity, and nearly $100 million in state and local tax revenue. Outside of the states immediately affected, the moratorium will cost the nation 12,000 jobs and nearly $3 billion, including almost $200 million in federal tax revenues.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will raise taxes across the board at the worst possible time in the midst of a major recession.

This isn't delusional, it's intentional.

It is Barack Obama's Kool-Aid for America.


Read about Jim Jones at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Friday, August 13, 2010

惊天大发现:汉语是一门低级语言 Troubles with Indexation in Chinese Language

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

中文是一种无法进行知识积累、知识查找、知识询问与知识推进的语言。 (如用中文的一、二、三、四也绝不可能产生数学与逻辑。) 将书放在藏经阁里并非知识积累,因为藏经阁里的书只能被写书的人(已死)解读。 后人只能用这种病语去猜测。 知识就此不可能向前演进。

Kai Chen's Words:

Indexation in Chinese is an impossible task. Therefore the Chinese language is a language that impedes knowledge accumulation, knowledge pursuit and knowledge creation. (Using Chinese language can never produce mathematics.) Accumulation of books is in no way accumulation of knowledge. Most Chinese books from ancient times can only be interpreted subjectively to approximate the original meaning, since the writers of the book have long been dead. Thus it is no surprise that in China there are only four inventions in 4,000 years.


------------------------------------------------

Troubles with Indexation in Chinese Language

惊天大发现:汉语是一门低级语言


http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=3018921&page=1#3018921


飞龙在半天 于 2009-9-16 18:40:39 发布在 凯迪社区 > 猫眼看人

我一直在考虑一个问题,为什么中国人几千年来都在说四大发明. 平均一千年才一个发明.

还有一个问题就是平时交流的时候,大部分不懂得逻辑思维. 这个问题思考了很多年,今天,我终于找到答案. 那就是汉语是一门低级语言.

我们先从数字来说, 我们知道, 只用1234567890这十个数字就能表示从零到无穷大的整数. 你想表示比十万多1的数,好办, 100001就能表示了. 如果加上小数点,还能表示从1到2之间的无限个小数. 如果加上-就能表示无穷小的数. ............全中国13亿人的电话号码都能用只用数字而不用其他符号表示出来,而不会出现两个人同一个号码的情况.

计算机, 只用0和1就能显示出我们人类不能达到的很多功能. 这是为什么呢? 因为这是一种进制语言. 上面说的是十进制和二进制.

  进制语言追求的是精确, 你要多大,他就能表示多大. 你要多小,他就能表示多小. 他在从小到大里可以很细致连续的表示出来.(请注意连续一个词,实数就是连续的,有理数是不连续的.)

  进制语言除了可以表达你所需要的任何数外,他还有无限扩充的能力. 从整数扩充到小数和分数.从小数和分数再扩充到无理数,然后扩充到实数,很多人以为实数以后就没有什么数了. 到高中时还有复数.以后还会扩充么? 肯定会.
  
  好了,回到英语,英语也是一种进制语言,采用的是26进制,使用了26个符号(拉丁字母) 他们是有序列的,就像10个数字加上一些符号可以表达你所要大的数,也能表达你所要小的数. 英语也一样,他能表达你所能看到的客观世界, 情感世界, 未知世界, 而且能像1.1 1.2 1.3 那样精确的表达一个从低到高,从大到小, 等不同程度的问题. 也就是说, 英语这门进制语言, 可以做到很精确的情况. 所以大部分科学技术都是使用进制语言的人发明的......

  英语除了精确,也像数字一样可以无限扩充,这种扩充能力使人想到即可做到. 发明创造就是基于这种特性. 比如三角形, 每个点的表示, 使用ABC. 说汉语的人就没有把三角形的三个顶点用汉语世界里的符号表示. 不能表示,知识就不能传递. abc除了表示英语的语音外还可以表示世界任何一种物体.数学公式, 物理公式,化学反应都能用26进制的abc表示.

  在数字之外的客观世界,使用另外一套进制符号来表示, 这就是科学发展的基本条件.英语国家使用10进制的数字表示你所能想到的数,使用26进制的字母表示你所能想到的任何事物. 这两种进制语言的结合,使英语达到一种想到就能做到的境界.

  这就可以解释为什么资本主义和现代科学起源于西欧而不是中国或其他文明?
  
  汉语呢? 汉语不是一门进制语言. 他没有基本的符号, 符号之间不能排序. 不能排序的语言就不能很好的表达从低到高,从大到小等不同程度的问题. 计算机不是中国人发明的就是一种必然.而不是一种偶然.
  
  那么汉语有没有序列呢? 有, 甲乙丙丁戊己庚辛壬癸等天干,还有子丑寅卯辰巳午未申酉戌亥等表示序列的地支. 这些汉字为中国历史的年份表达起到很大的作用, 然而, 因为他们不能表示足够大,也不能表示足够小,他们互相组合从甲子到癸亥能精确的表示60年.之后有从甲子开始往复,因此就不能表示精确的时间. 比如,我们看古典小说时会看到, "午时三刻."这样的表示时间的文字, 还会看到,古人在深夜时用三更半夜等词语. 那么表示比午时三刻多10秒钟的时刻怎么表示呢? 汉语不能表示. 直到阿拉伯数字引进中国才能表示.

  甲乙丙丁戊己庚辛壬癸子丑寅卯辰巳午未申酉戌亥等这些汉字并不是汉语的基本符号. 到现在汉语世界里还没有概括出一套有序列的基本符号来. 所以说汉语的人没有发明电, 没有发明声音的录制,没有发明视像的录制, 等等. 甚至圆珠笔,这个使中国人脱离毛笔大大方便书写交流的工具,都不是中国人发明的.
  
  因此, 汉语的一个发展方向是要有一套可以排序的基本符号. 这对促进思维的发展有很大好处.

  说英语是线性语言,汉语是非线性语言, 可能没有说到要害. 我们这样说, 英语是一门进制语言,而汉语是一门非进制语言. 进制语言是高级语言的一个特征, 而汉语不是进制语言,所以汉语是低级语言.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Living Without Freedom in China 对自由的挑战-在没有自由的当代中国

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语:

当今中共党奴朝的政经模式有如当年纳粹德国的政经模式一样,是一个对资本主义自由贸易经济与对联邦宪政的民主自由文化的理念挑战。 孔学院、孔学堂只是这种挑战的一个样本。 世界上热爱自由的人们应当对此有深刻的认知与足够的精神准备。

Kai Chen's Words:

Today China's economic and political system - a bureaucratic mercantilism and communist despotism, is like the pre-war Nazi Germany with its booming economy, political tyranny and growing military strength, posing not only as a military threat but also an ideological challenge to the Western concept of Constitutional Democracy with individual freedom and free market capitalism. Confucius Institutes/Classrooms is only one such example of the challenge. Freedom-loving people in the world should understand such a mortal threat and be ready intellectually, morally, militarily and psychologically to face such a challenge.


"联合国的人权宣言看上去美言连篇,但它实际上是一个孔孟腐儒的文件(孟子是一个孔儒的门徒)。 反映个体价值、个体尊严的字眼在整篇人权宣言中从未出现过。 整个人权宣言只是个孔孟儒家的烂语,因为一个起草宣言的主要人物是个叫P.C.张的华裔人。 --- 爱德华. 弗里德曼

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its beautiful preamble, is a Mencian document (Mencius is one of Confucius’ disciples). The word “individual” never appears in the document. The language was shaped by the philosophy of Mencius because one of the crafters of the Universal Declaration was a Chinese gentleman named P.C. Chang." --- Edward Friedman


--------------------------------------------------

Living Without Freedom in China

对自由的挑战-在没有自由的当代中国


June 2007

By Edward Friedman

(Edward Friedman is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.This essay is based on his presentation at Living Without Freedom: A History Institute for Teachers sponsored by FPRI’s Marvin Wachman Fund for International Education, May 5–6, 2007, held at and co-sponsored by the National Constitution Center and the National Liberty Museum in Philadelphia. FPRI’s History Institute for Teachers program is chaired by David Eisenhower and Walter A. McDougall and receives core support from the Annenberg Foundation; this program was supported by a grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.)

It’s not easy for American students to know what it means to live without freedom. They know all the bad things about their own country—Virginia Tech, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Enron and Halliburton scandals, the LA riots, elections stolen, federal attorneys fired for pursuing criminals rather than a political agenda, etc. How democratic is America?, they cynically wonder. When you tell them how awful these other places are, they ask, aren’t you just whitewashing your own society.

The hardest place to understand what the lack of freedom means is China, which is nothing like the Stalin model or Cuba or North Korea. It’s by no stretch of the imagination a totalitarian society. In post-Mao China, Chinese travel abroad in huge numbers. The country has the fifth largest tourist population in the world, on its way to being number one. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students are abroad; in internet use, China is about to overtake the U.S. as number one in the world. It’s a market society, brutally competitive; the economy is less state-owned than France or Austria’s, for example. Life is not dominated by communist block units; you can buy your own house or car, there’s no forced labor. You can choose your physician freely; most young Chinese would say they live in a free, democratic society.

So what does it mean to say that Chinese people live without freedom? First, it is a brilliant system at making people complicit with the unfreedom. For days after the June 4, 1989, massacre in Beijing of democracy supporters headquartered in Tiananmen Square, there was great tension in the city between people who live there and the occupying army. How did the party respond? Teachers were ordered to teach their students a new song: “The Army loves the people, the people love the Army.” Parents couldn’t say the song was untrue lest their children repeat this back at school. You can’t bring up your children the way you want to.

This is true for many lies the Chinese are forced to let stand uncontested. There still are committees for the defense of the revolution. They have to make their own money and often turn into Avon ladies, visiting house to house, but you know that if you aren’t complicit, maybe you won’t get a passport. It may be held against your child when s/he applies for college. You and your family will be shunned in the neighborhood. You could be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

China is not the worst stable authoritarian regime in the world: a North Korean might consider it free. Even foreigners who go to North Korea and then come back to China feel they are returning to a free country. But you get faced every day with decisions that bring it home to you that you’re not. If your child is ill, should you go to the pharmacy and buy some medicine? Of course, but medicines are often frauds in China. There have been cases where baby formula is bogus and children have died from receiving no nutrition. China has a ruthless free market, no regulation, no safety standards, no FDA, no CDC, no NIH. It’s also the world leader for people dying in industrial accidents, and about 400,000 each year die from drinking the water, which is unpotable. A Chinese journalist recently went to 10 Chinese hospitals wanting to get his blood tested. So he complained of certain aches and pains that he knew would cause them to test his blood. But he didn’t give them his blood, he carried in a thermos with tea and poured that into the cups. Eight of the ten reported to him that he had the most serious blood disease and that it would cost them endless money for treatment.

China has people who see the problems of this corrupt, arbitrary society and try to do something about them. There are courageous lawyers and journalists. The leading political crime in China is land seizures. The economy is growing at a fantastic rate, which means that you can sell pieces of land to a developer for a lot of money. You don’t want ordinary people to get rich. All the goodies are grabbed as much as possible by the ruling group. Over 97 percent of all millionaires in China are relatives of the top party elite. There are those who complain and resist, who stick to their guns. Lawyers come in to defend them. Accordingly, China is first in the world in the number of lawyers, journalists and Netizens in prison.

These things are hard to see when one is visiting, but there are signs one can see if one looks hard. Go to the railroad station at midnight, and you will see tens of thousands of people sleeping in the street. It is probably the most unequal stable society in the world. Income in the poorest rural areas has been declining. There’s no union, with one exception: the government is now promoting getting unions into multinational corporations, but as an instrument of party control, not to help the workers. The Party doesn’t like foreigners doing things they don’t know about. They want their agents in the places where the foreigners are, to control things as much as they can.

Freedom means the ability to hold your government accountable. There is no way to do this in China, and people die. China is said to have 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, and some would say it would be 20 out of 20 if they didn’t lie about the other four. Everything is corrupt. The only way you can get anything done is through corruption. This creates a sense of no morality. But people want meaning in their lives. So there’s a tremendous religious revival. All over China, all religions are reviving. The Party fears it. How does it respond? It crushes Christian house churches, it doesn’t like Lama Buddhism, it’s careful about Hui Muslims, but beyond that, it’s pushing essentially its own state religion, a combination of Han chauvinism, in which Chinese worship the yellow emperor, and an authoritarian Confucianism. The state is building Confucian temples. The vision is that China is going to explain its extraordinary rise to its own people and to the world as the result of its unique ethical religion, its Confucianism. It’s going to spread Confucian societies all around the world, it’s going to teach everybody that China produces a better quality of people because it has this moral authority and all others are inferior. Confucianism is the only way to raise people, and the world is properly hierarchically ordered with Confucian Chinese at the center of it.

China is a superpower. Its economy is rising, its military is rising, and Chinese people in surveys are more popular in most countries of the world than are Americans right now. China’s going to be using this money to serve certain purposes. Among them are undercutting the power of the United States, democracy and human rights and supporting authoritarian regimes. Whether it’s Sudan or Nigeria, they can buy up the oil and governments don’t have to listen to any kind of international pressure about conforming to human rights. China has already defeated the international human rights regime.

China’s rise means that freedom is in trouble. The era we’re in is very much like the era after WWI. Authoritarian models are rising and are becoming more attractive. I can imagine a future in which unregulated hedge funds lead to an international financial crisis and this is seen as coming out of the Anglo-American countries, London and New York being the two centers of these monies. But China regulates capital, so these things are not allowed in. The Chinese model may yet look even more attractive than it does now.

In describing this Chinese rise and how I believe it has the potential of being a threat to freedom in an extraordinary way that we haven’t seen since the end of WWI. I am not trying to suggest that Chinese don’t care about freedom; people do not need a Greek-Roman Christian heritage to care about freedom. That kind of claim is parochially and culturally very narrow. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its beautiful preamble, is a Mencian document (Mencius is one of Confucius’ disciples). The word “individual” never appears in the document. The language was shaped by the philosophy of Mencius because one of the crafters of the Universal Declaration was a Chinese gentleman named P.C. Chang. Of course this is December 1948, the day after the Genocide convention was passed. The communists didn’t come to power for another year.

There is no trouble in understanding freedom and human rights in any culture in the world. People living in tyrannies may in fact have a better understanding of what freedom is about than American teens, who think it’s just that you get your driver’s license in your late teens.

The Chinese regime has fostered a nationalism to trump democracy. People are taught that they are threatened by democracy, that democracy would make people weak. Party propaganda has it, “How did Rwanda occur? Because they tried to build a democracy. If the Hutus had simply imposed their will, they never would have had that problem. If it moves in a democratic direction, China is going to fall apart; it will be like what happened to Russia, to Yugoslavia. Do you want to end up like Chechnya and Bosnia? That’s what the Americans really want. You are fortunate to be a Chinese living in an ethical, authoritarian system.” The TV will show pictures of say the Los Angeles riots, the Sudan, and people are made frightened and confused. They’re proud to be Chinese and want to raise ethical kids. They want a country they can be proud of, certainly not like American kids. The Chinese are taught that American youth are smoking at an early age, use pot, have babies in their teens, watch pornography on TV, spread AIDS, get divorced, and don’t care what happens to their elderly parents. Why would you want to live in such an immoral way? This propaganda seems to work with many Chinese.

So what is growing in China is an authoritarian, patriotic, racially defined, Confucian Chinese project which is going to be a formidable challenge not just to the United States but, I think, to democracy, freedom, and human rights all around the world. China is going to seem quite attractive to many people. That is why it is so very important to understand what living without freedom really means.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety, attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to 1*. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.