Group items tagged

Did you wonder whether our economy had grown a little overly precious? How can we really be producing value if we're all sitting around blogging and Facebook-friending each other?

1999 the British think-tanker Charles Leadbeater published the book Living on Thin Air. It was both an appealing notion and a scary one: that we no longer have to produce anything but ideas. And that was even before Web 2.0--a platform for everyone to share their ideas, opinions, favorite tunes, and relationship statuses with each other. It was all a lot of fun, but I occasionally wondered whether it was really good for economic productivity.

it wouldn't be a bad outcome if the current crisis led to a more diligent, industrious economic climate. Chatting and socializing are important things, but they're not the only things.

On the other hand, I’ve seen no one addressing the questions of actual political and bureaucratic process. What comes first? Elections in major urban centers like Shanghai, a sort of Special Democratic Zone? Loosening of Internet controls? Judiciary reform? Privatization of state media? Releasing political prisoners? Local officials already abuse existing structures, how much more will they abuse transitional processes? If you don’t want a revolution, then there has to be some sort of proposed process that the current government can work with and Chinese citizens can feel both moves reform forward and doesn’t threaten to unravel society. If you don’t say anything about how you might accomplish such a thing, but simply describe the end result in which the government becomes something unrecognizable from the existing one, you may not have explicitly called for its overthrow but you sure didn’t call for something else instead. Not to mention its difficult not to see it as just a wish list. Anybody can make a wishlist - who’s going to do the real work?

I think the commenter who asks whether Charter 08 is really calling for a revolution has a point, and it’s not fair to riposte “well, if this all happened it would be revolutionary”. It wouldn’t be if the changes happened gradually or in a controlled and orderly way (as they did in other countries). The party itself, after all, keeps promising political reform, and many of the people who support it so heartily do so on the assumption that it is serious about eventually keeping that promise. The people I spoke to (and quoted) did not think this was a substitute for tackling concrete real life issues, but thought it important to have a framework within which to do so.

Notice, also that I said a “revolution of the system of government”. Not the government, the system. The problems I’m referring to is that when the system, the way things are done, from paying your electricity bill to detemining holders of public office, changes radically, 180 degrees, then there can be terrible consequences. How should one try to avoid those consequences? How can you make the transition smoothly? These are the things that ought to be discussed, and these are the things that will persuade people that your ideals can actually be realized. That might get you a groundswell of demand for change - abstract philosophical manifestos, though, don’t cut it.

希望中國實行以民為本制度 這些人受到無理和違法的對待，但主流媒體一面倒為北京奧運唱好，彷彿歌舞昇平能蓋過一切，好像為了北京奧運彰顯中國的大能，只得無奈地犧牲這些人，報道這些人的狀被視為沒有新聞價值，不值一提，甚至有人認為既然北京舉辦奧運已成事實，我們還提這些幹什麼。 北京申辦奧運以改善人權的承諾是中國官員自己許下的，北京官員絕不能每次被外國政要、外國媒體和關注中國人權的組織與人士問及中國人權問題時，便橫蠻無理的指他人把奧運政治化。自己許下的承諾沒有兌現卻含血噴人指控他人藉人權問題把奧運政治化，這是我們的國家領導人應有的態度嗎？這是依法治國應有的做法嗎？

為了盛事，全民被「含淚勸告」收聲。如果不收聲，就會失去說話權。比如說，「豆瓣」這個這兩年迅速壯大的文化討論網站，以同好者的形式匯聚了一個個自由暢談的小組，令人欣喜覺得這是網絡自由空間的拓荒地，但先是「文革小組」和「林昭小組」被封，繼而眾小組被勸諭毋論國事，接覑一系列所謂敏感實則只是在調侃的小組被關閉，像「和諧社會2.0」、「網絡第49號看管所」、「我們是社會主義的接班人」，最後連純屬搞笑的「悲慘新聞小組」也被封了，而極有影響的「北方周末」小組，有幾千個成員，剛剛也被勒令在奧運開幕前七天禁止發表新的言論。 有哀其不幸怒其不爭的豆瓣網友寫了一篇《豆瓣已死》，說出了真相：「當初還想覑理解豆瓣，知道在這個偉大的國家，豆瓣也有不得以的苦衷，但到了最後，就變成了一種笑話。嚴要求、高標準在豆瓣得到了完美的執行，以至於在內地各大網站通行無阻的文章，到了豆瓣就會威脅網站的運營。」原來不只是官方壓力，更多的是自我審查，自我閹割。

其实无数中国人的意识中间还是有那么多思维定势。虽然越来越多人的头脑已经很开放，却也无法摆脱这种定势的影子。来源自教育，来源自媒体的轰炸，也来源自心底那些尚未设定的信念，或者难以实现的分享主义自由状态。其实民主绝不是洪水，却可能是猛兽，但是猛兽可以进化。

中国需要2.0，中国的经济总量增加到如今的地步得益于多样性的产能和输出渠道，却无法继续还靠这种模式腾飞起来。

选举就是一种群体智能的形式，结果自身也在迭代的进化中，关键是开关要打开，否则就永远不知道智慧的世界在哪里？

如果將日記中的記事形式，分為「動詞+人事物」，則可大致描繪出日記中可能紀錄的每日行動類型。簡單計算1894年間的日記，發現包含有以下數種行動：

老公精心照料培育的癌细胞，今后大半就都要变成风流鬼了。 "所以说红颜祸水。" 这台东西装完了，就这么演示了一把，他又要把各个部件都拆下来，放回别的机器。因为这一台机器和其他机器都还有别的用处，实验室里其他人几乎天天都要用到。所以老公每次做这个实验，必然又要东拆西补。经济不景气的时候，只好自己多劳动了。但老公乐此不疲，我也因而觉得他并非受了老板的压榨，竟也觉得开心起来。

可以推论的一点是，在没有可持续政治制度的前提下，任何试图利用民族主义的滥觞加以利用并试图达到维系目的的努力都可能导致体系的崩溃，甚至引发更难以收拾的结局。在全球社会力量自组织能力已经崛起的今天，也许崩溃和血腥灾难的风险已经降低到最小，却无法避免一个缺少正确史观和教育观的民族不断泛滥的双输心理。英国哲学家罗素也在《中国问题》中说，一旦怯弱温和的中国人的热情被激发，也可能变成世上最轻率的赌徒。这是对过去历史的评价。遗憾的是，这套模式除了直接拷贝到文化大革命，到如今仍然阴魂不散，在现代多样世界仍然能会不断复制自己。袁伟时先生的担忧是有道理的，“用这样的理路潜移默化我们的孩子，不管主观意图如何，都是不可宽宥的戕害”。

個人信念與社會價值和現實之間，往往存在落差，個人的信念愈強，落差可能造成的矛盾與壓力也愈大。個人信念模糊，甚至沒有什麼可稱為信念或理想，就愈容易接受社會現實趨勢及種種社會及政治組織宣揚的價值，隨波逐流。

中國的民主之路太遙遠，若是不停止在各方面對思想的監控與箝制，民主可能是永遠無法實現的夢想。但是，有條件的開放還是有一點機會的，就看當局願意對"有條件的開放"如何規範及定義了。

美國選舉不僅指出願景、並且就特定政策內涵進行公開辯論（但並不平常）。一般而言台灣與美國選舉策略大致同步，但在議題設定以及深入探索等等行為上興趣極低。

在台大附近買到當時仍是禁書的「被出賣的台灣」一書，閱讀過程中我哭了很多次，這段血淚歷史國民黨根本提也不提！從此後我開始不再不假思索地信任國民黨的政治宣傳。

Multitasking is part of daily life. But humans remember and learn differently when their attention is divided. Russel Poldrack, a UCLA psychology professor, speaks with Lynn Neary about what occurs in the brain during multitasking.

执着，坚持，努力，为了梦想 不懈的奋斗。Kiwi 没有翅膀，但是和所有的鸟一样，同样有飞翔的梦想。做一只鸟，哪有不想飞的呢？ 有了梦想好事，但是如果不实践它，那它就只能算是空想，一个白日梦而已。不能真飞，于是就模拟一次吧。Kiwi 的创意很好，但是代价很大。用一个生命换来一次飞行。在一个90度的悬崖上，努力的用它那不太灵活的大脚操作各种工具，做各种“特技”表演。各种准备终于做好了，Kiwi 可以飞了。悬崖前面是梦想，生后是生活，是现实，是一只永远不能飞的小丑鸟。为了梦想和xx，他冲了下去。镜头转动，Kiwi 飞起来了。他享受，他感动，他流泪。短暂的过后，随着一声沉闷的撞击声，Kiwi……..PS.不好意思，又是一篇高考小作文。

“蜡烛两头烧”，这话说得妙。你看电视剧里老套的求饶方法，都是“大侠，求求你饶了小的吧！小人家中上有老母下有妻小，全指着小的一人养活呢！”然后，大侠就心软了。确实，职场人到了三四十岁，父母年纪逐渐大了需要照顾，幼小的孩子嗷嗷待哺或即将上学，在公司里努力爬到中高层，肩上的担子也更重了，一根顶梁柱当三根使，难怪要过劳！

Tell us more about why it was blocked? Livid: A journalist from Life Weekly (三联生活周刊, a magazine found in 1920s) magazine interviewed me in Dec. 2006. A few days after the story was published in the first issue of 2007, on Jan. 11 2007, the net wires connected to the servers were ordered to be unplugged (Livid’s notes in Chinese here) and all the data were not accessible.