Racism and hypocrisy

Human can’t be judged because of their skin color. Individually, it’s true. But different culture groups are really basically different in quality. Those cultures can be inherited generation after generation before memory (before you remember when you started to remember your own name). And when people pay more attention to their own identities, no matter their skin colors are, they will look for something to identify themselves to distinguish themselves from others, and naturally they want to prove themselves superior.  We call it racism. Racism is not only the white people’s property. All kinds of colored people can be racists once they have a chance to proudly identify themselves from others by distinguishing between skin colors or others features like origins.

White people are not more racism at all.

And there’s another question, what about human evolution?

Human evolution means the quality requirement for human becomes higher and higher.

But if some group of people can’t reach the higher standard, can they be categorized low-qualified human group? Racism?

If we don’t distinguish between human rights and human quality, will the human rights become hypocritical and in the end slow down human evolution?

Human dream is self-conditional, if we don’t distinguish between human rights and conditions for human itself-(quality), hypocrites will destroy human dream. History has been proving it.

I can’t agree with racists. But I believe in real human values. And I agree that human are different in quality because of culture, tradition, values, or other factors affecting human quality.

And hypocrites are more dangerous than racists.

To become the object to know the object

How to know human?

We can watch.

We can give a theory to explain what we have observed. And we can test it to see if it is true.

But we can never really know human only by watching.

How to know human, then?

Before we answer this question, we should answer other questions first. How can we communicate? How can we understand each other when we communicate? Why can’t we even understand each other in any case? If these questions can’t be answered, we can’t know how we can know human. And if these questions can be well answered, it gives us clues to find the ways to know human.

Suppose there’s somebody honest who can tell you everything about him/herself without an intended lie, can you know him/her by understanding what he/she tells you?

If we want to fully understand another people, what suppositions we need? We should suppose,

• we can know ourselves,
• different people have the same or similar cognition system, and we can know the same thing if we are under the same conditions,
• we express the same thing in the language which can make the expression disambiguated,
• when we try to understand each other, it means we try to recover the mental state to get the same awareness which has been already existed in our mind, and when we get it, we say we understand. If it doesn’t exist in our mind, we have no chance to understand.
• we have to have something to be recovered to be bewared,
• the same thing being bewared means we have to be under the same conditions, and means we have to get in the same mental or bodily state.

We suppose we know others if the above suppositions met.

It requires the researchers to be able to change their mental state to have the objects’ mental state. It means the researchers should eliminate all of self and build the objects’ self. But how to break our self?

We know we have personalities. It means everybody has their comparatively stable state of self. But we also know the personality can be changed and usually we can experience strong feelings during the process of changing. And usually we don’t like those feelings. It means if we want to change our self, we have to be brave enough to bear the uncomfortable feelings to change our self. There’s a fact that children can’t be that calm if they lose the chance to have what they like but most of adults can be calm or calmer than children when they lose what they like. It isn’t because how long they have lived, but because of the feelings caused by gain or loss they have experienced and the state of balance of the feelings. That makes them different when they want to free their mental state from restriction by psychological forces. Those, who had ever lost any hope in their lives, probably depressed to death, can have the ability to free their mental state and adjust it to the possible state they want to be in. And if the state is exactly the one their objects are in, they can, probably, know their objects. It is the furthest extent how we can know others.

(Are you still so sure your comment is true when you judge others?)

The fact-set and the theory-set

The fact-set is the set of independent facts, phenomena, testing results, affections, …, anything existing conditionally despite we believe or not, which can be observed, experienced, tested, …

And the theory-set is the set of theories, which are made to explain some fact-set.

Then, the more facts in the fact-set, the fewer theories can be in the theory-set. And vice versa.

Any theory-making should reach the goal of having the unique theory for a complete fact-set.

But just as we all can see, we can never guarantee any fact-set is a complete one. It means we can never have a final theory for any object. Any theory can only be true under the condition of the related fact-set.

============

Remark,

It is one of the most powerful research method to seeking the conditions for any fact’s existence.

The definitions of some words

The definitions of some words

• superior/inferior (upper/lower). A president of some organization would be thought the superior by comparing to the members of the organization, and vice versa. A more qualified person can be thought the superior by comparing to the lowly qualified, and vice versa. A hero can be thought the superior by comparing to those who make troubles, and vice versa. Any persons can be thought the superior if they adhere to higher value-standards, and vice versa. But here, “the superior” means somebody is unfairly, unreasonably or improperly treated as the predominant one largely because of policy, tradition, his/her arrogant attitude, or because of the result of power struggle. And “the inferior” can be defined in the same way. When it becomes the basic relationship in a society, the entire society becomes evil, and all of its members become evil.
• equality. Equality means everybody can get the same result/consequence if they meet the same conditions and they are offered the same conditions for the same result/consequence. And different people get different results under different conditions, they can exchange the results by exchanging the conditions without thinking it unfair.
• fairness. There are two kinds of fairness. One is rights/obligations-based fairness in a freely established relationship. It means, if I agree to such a relationship, then I fulfill the obligations and have the rights. The other one is normality-based fairness. If it helps human life, then it is fair, or vice versa.

The Value of research

The value of research is to find the truth (fact or value) to avoid fooling ourselves, and to seek the principles of the object to take advantage of the object if the principles exist.

So, only if there are Han Chinese facts existing, or if Han Chinese traits or behaviors affecting themselves or others’ life, or if there’s any principle of Han Chinese value/attitude/behavior/reason to be found, it is valuable to research Han Chinese.

I suppose there are Han Chinese facts existing and Han Chinese are one of the factors affecting themselves or our life.

But is there any Han Chinese principle to be found?

The answer to this question can only be given in the procedure I analyze Han Chinese.

How to exist as a living thing

If the conditions of being alive get met, the genes can be kept alive. But there are many ways to be alive.

You can live like a master, you can also live like a slave.

You can live like an owner, you can also live like the livestock.

You can live with more rights and fewer obligations, you can also live with fewer rights and more obligations.

You can live as the ruler, you can also live as the ruled.

Wild animals, domesticated animals, livestock, pets, slaves, masters, owners, low ranked, high ranked, the ruled, the rulers, …, all exist as living things. But which one do you want to live as? If we make the mentioned above all have human face, they would all be your choice.

Sometimes, it is not easy to make the choice. You can live as a slave to keep your genes alive. But sometimes, probably you would like to live with freedom and honor, or else, you’d rather die.

Here, I suppose, people should think it the better way to live with supremacy or dominance, or else, they would rather let their genes disappear from the earth. It is another word to say competition.

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.