Strategy and values

Everybody can have their own values. But among those different values, who have the better values?

When people say that value is their belief. It is just a belief, no need to offer reasons. Can people say, “It is my right and it is my choice. I enjoy my life when I have the values.” It sounds great. Most of people like freedom and want to enjoy freedom. But can we really choose our values freely?

What’s a pity. We are born to live under conditions. We can’t be unconditionally alive. And when we contest with each others, the one, who can have better values, wins. If we have no absolute reference of value, we can only find the better values by testing it. And the best test is international wars. (Today, people look for reasons to prove ancient Greek democracy is superior. But if Persians had won over Greeks, people would prove another way of life superior. Han Chinese is the only one, who can win by keeping blind to fact. Han Chinese don’t win in reality, they win in how-I-think-it. So I have to set it the standard of value if a country would win or lose in international wars in a long time. The superiority in international wars means better values.)

———————-

How to evaluate?

The answer is related to what we want to get, because only when we want to have something happening to our life, it is valuable for us to evaluate.

It means the evaluation is related to the conditions of the goals we pursue.

Whatever human thinks themselves are, human can’t set their goals freely. Nobody can’t think they are the master of the world when they get down on their knees to their invaders if at the same time they think they are mentally normal. So, I suppose it the highest and realistic goal to live without surrendering to the rivals. Sometimes, we call it strategy. Although such goal can’t satisfy anyone, but it is already the toughest one for us to pursue.

Without rival and competition, human always goes stupid. No any danger in human life is tougher than the rival. So, we can suppose we have the smartest rival, and we can define it right if it is helpful to defeat the rival, and define it wrong if it is in our rival’s behalf to defeat ourselves.

If we think we are different from anything else alive, it is vitally important for us to know the exact affection by the factors.

We should know anything helpful or harmful. And it is also vitally important for us to know the ranking of the values, because it is impossible for us to pay full attention to anything in our life. We should distinguish between urgent and not urgent, between important and more or less important, between affecting factors and non-affecting factors. And we should know the exact affection by the factors and the conditions for them to take effect.

How to compete with our rivals?

Another question should be answered first. Why and how can any rival get defeated? It is because nothing can be alive absolutely freely. Anything alive is conditional. When the conditions get destroyed, nothing can be alive. And the competition is to destroy each others’ conditions of being alive. Those ,who can know and control the conditions of being alive more, can be predominant. But why do some of the people or animals surrender, while others don’t? Animals are not controlled by their own ideas, but controlled by their natural traits. Human is different. When some people surrender, while others don’t do in the same conditions, it means those people think freedom or superiority less important than life. So, if we don’t want to surrender or die, we should not give our rivals any chance to destroy the conditions of being alive, and at the same time, we should have the superior power to destroy the conditions for our rivals to be alive.

The solvable problems and the unsolvable problems

It means something is against our wish if there are problems. But what kind of wishes are possible to get fulfilled and what kind of wishes are impossible to get fulfilled?

Some wishes are easy to get categorized. But some wishes are not easy to get categorized. There’s no obvious boundary between the solvable problems and the unsolvable problems. Sometimes we can call it ambitious if we want to solve the problems, which seem unsolvable. But sometimes it is obviously foolish to solve the problems we think them solvable.

Only those solvable problems can become our work to find the solution.

Facts or phenomena

We can never answer the question, “Are you sure the principles you found are the same as the real ones of the object?” We can only answer this question by saying, “It seems it works when we apply the principles to the object and we can have our problems solved.”

And when we answer the question, “Are you sure the “facts” or “phenomena” you observed or experienced are true? Or, are you sure you didn’t get fooled by your psychological state?” We can only answer these questions the same way when we answer the principle-question.

Then, when we use our knowledge to solve problems, too much confidence means foolish. We have to leave room for possible correcting when we apply our knowledge.

So, what’s the truer facts or phenomena of the object if we can’t believe in the absolutely true ones?

The standard is the same as the one when we use to evaluate the principles of the object. If it works well when we apply the knowledge to solve our problems, we can temporarily believe it, and we should immediately doubt it when it can’t work well.

Solve the conflicts in mind

We have to solve the problems in reality. But we find any solution to any problem in our mind first. The problems in our mind are mental conflicts.

There’s another question. Can we really solve the problems in reality when we solve the problems in our mind. It depends. If the problems in reality haven’t become conflicts in our mind, or can’t become the conflicts in our mind to be related them, even if we solve the conflicts in our mind, we can’t solve the problems in reality. Then, before we solve the problems in reality, we should check the conflicts in our mind first. And we should check it all the time because we can’t know if the conflicts in our mind reflect the exact problems in reality.

I suppose that our mind is something representing our needs (conditions of being alive) to be alive and can accept the information from any factor to find the principles of the factors and find the solution to our needs.

And I suppose we are created by nature and there’s no inconsistence in nature. This supposition is very important. Without it, we will get lost in seeking the meaning of life, the conditions of life, the meaning of solving problems or why we can solve the problems by getting knowledge consistent with the facts.

And I suppose there must be something unknown or false in our knowledge if we have some knowledge or idea inconsistent with any fact.

Then, one of the researcher’s mission is to get some knowledge consistent to our needs to be alive and get solution to our needs in reality and get consistent knowledge of any fact we can observe or feel.

The mission is a huge project. Nobody can have it done in his/her own life. But part of it is possible to be finished by somebody in his/her life.

When we do the job, the unsatisfied desire or unsolved problems become questions or unbalances in our mind and we can’t have good feeling if we can’t find the answers.

In my entire research of Han Chinese, the process always begins with questions and ends with answers or nest group of questions.

Reject self and rely on self

It is critically important for a researcher to reject the self before he/she starts the research. I suppose all individuals have the same psychological origin, different personalities are from the same origin conditionally. Then, if we can reject ourselves and adjust our psychological state to the same as the state of others’ psychology, we can know others exactly. But it is not easy to follow. I set another standard to know if we have gotten the same state of our objects’. If we can adjust our psychological state to have the ideas/thinking/attitudes/behaviors “naturally” the same as our objects, we can think probably we have already gotten the state, or fact, or phenomena of our objects.

When we adjust our self, we should use some psychological techniques to make our self not work and make those factors affecting others’ psychological state work on our self. The techniques including

• to quit any desire, wish, will, pursuit, request from others, pressure, life goal …
• to think ourselves the foolishest and know nothing about the world to depress our thoughts/values/knowledge …, which are already in our mind and working
• when we are in the state of “empty”, we can try to make us to become our objects
• suppose the principles to make our objects are the same as the principles making ourselves. then we should talk to our objects to know more about their history and observe them, then we can use their history, feelings, sense, experience, emotions, desires, values, knowledge, idea, thoughts, attitudes, behaviors … to make ourselves to be the same as the objects
• when we can have the same feelings, sense, emotions, desires, will, wish, life goal, pursuit, pressure, habit, attitude, behavior, ideas, …, i.e. when we find we are the same as our objects, we can suppose we have already gotten the knowledge of our objects with less difference from the truth

Because we can never know the exact feelings others got, we can only suppose those feelings we got the same as our objects’. So, if we want to find truth in our research, we must be honest and our objects must be honest.

Han Chinese phenomena or facts

Han Chinese is a group. Can I collect a group’s phenomena like collecting a person’s facts?

If the phenomena happened to Han Chinese at different time, can I put the facts together to find out the principles hidden in the facts?

And like a person changing all the time, Han Chinese group is changing too. How can I find any Han Chinese behavior principle?

If the personal traits don’t lead to conflict, the personal traits can be the group’s traits.

And the traits can be inherited (It is also called tradition) and can influence the descendants, so, I can put the facts happened in different era together to find principles in those “stable Han Chinese traits”.

Generally, we can research Han Chinese by acknowledging today’s Han Chinese, and how Han Chinese evaluate their history or others’ history.

Human facts or phenomena

Human behaviors are different from mechanical motions. Human behaviors are consciously or unconsciously controlled or affected by aims, i.e. we can look for the values of human behavior to alive-system. But it is improper to look for the value of tide to the water. So we can’t think human behaviors are governed by Newton motion laws. But we should seek the value of behavior to human life.

So, when we collect facts or phenomena of human, we should know we are collecting alive-system actions.

How to describe a phenomenon?

We can describe a human phenomenon like describing a rock, or oil. But we should also describe a human phenomenon by describing the value of the behavior, object’s goal if it is a conscious phenomenon, feelings, what the object knows or experiences, decision making process and the reasons, ideas, thoughts, knowledge, attitudes, conflicts in environment or conflicts in mind, need, desire, the way to satisfy a desire, habit, history of experience, history of desire and the history of how desires got satisfied, what history the object remembers and what history the object forgets, what does the object desire most, what is the most unhappy thing in the object’s life, what strongly controls the object’s behaviors or actions, what controls the object, while not the object control him/herself, …, any factor affecting a person different from anything else. By comparing with anything else and seeking the reasons for the difference, we can gradually make the image of a person clear. And the right description can be done.

How to understand a phenomenon?

When the right description of a person is done, the phenomena are also well understood.

How can we know the description is the truth?

Here I have to give a presumption. I suppose all humans have the same original state with the same principles. Then, all of us are just conditionally different. If we can are under the same conditions, we are in the same state and we are the same, we have the same feelings, same desires, we act the same way … Then, if I can change my state to be the same as that of others, I can say I know others, or else, I don’t know others. This presumption is critically important. Without it, we can’t know each other exactly. For example, without that presumption, if somebody shows others something red, probably John actually sees something blue with the name of red, and Mary sees something yellow with the name of red. We just can’t prove it. Then, if we think the presumption true, it is critically important that we should get rid of our self to adjust our self to be the same as the object’s to have the possible knowledge of the object. When we naturally act the way same as the way our object acts, we probably know the object exactly. If we can know others, we can only know ourselves, and only when we can suppose we are the same as others, we can know others by knowing ourselves. But it is conditional. Or else, we would get the false information about the object.

General analysis process

Suppose there’s no contradiction in nature.

Apparently, the quality of hypothesis depends on the quality of the fact set. If there are more independent facts or phenomena of the object in the set, the hypothesis, which should be consistent with the set, is closer to truth.

(The freedom of hypothesis gets restricted by facts. What we want is the hypothesis with less freedom.)