早上在一公厕如厕，看见了挺特别的厕纸。厕纸有一排排没有规律的疙瘩（见图）。这让我联想到音乐盒里机芯的小钢筒。钢筒旋转时，一排排的疙瘩，弹开钢条，便奏出美妙的旋律。这看似没有规律的疙瘩其实就是一个曲谱。
我想着，如果把这厕纸上的这些疙瘩排在音乐盒的钢筒上，奏出的，会是怎么样的音乐呢？
于是，我用厕纸擦屁股时，厕所里好像叮叮当当飘荡一首狂想曲。
Sunday, September 20, 2009
厕纸狂想曲
早上在一公厕如厕，看见了挺特别的厕纸。厕纸有一排排没有规律的疙瘩（见图）。这让我联想到音乐盒里机芯的小钢筒。钢筒旋转时，一排排的疙瘩，弹开钢条，便奏出美妙的旋律。这看似没有规律的疙瘩其实就是一个曲谱。
我想着，如果把这厕纸上的这些疙瘩排在音乐盒的钢筒上，奏出的，会是怎么样的音乐呢？
于是，我用厕纸擦屁股时，厕所里好像叮叮当当飘荡一首狂想曲。
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Prince Shotoku's Seventeen-point Constitution
I was doing some translation work and stumbled upon Prince Shotoku's Seventeen-point Constitution. It took me a while to find the Chinese version. Just putting here in case I need to reference it again in the future.
圣德太子《十七条宪法》
推古天皇十二年夏四月丙寅朔。戊辰。
一曰。以和为贵。无忤为宗。人皆有党。亦少达者。是以或不顺君父。乍违于隣里。然上和下睦。谐於论事。则事理自通。何事不成。
二曰。笃敬三宝。三宝者佛法僧也。则四生终归。万国之极宗。何世何人非贵是法。人鲜尤恶。能教従之。其不归三宝。何以直枉。
三曰。承诏必谨。君则天之。臣则地之。天覆地载。四时顺行。方气得通。地欲覆天。则致坏耳。是以君言臣承。上行下靡。故承诏必慎。不谨自败。
四曰。群卿百寮。以礼为本。其治民之本。要在乎礼。上不礼而下非齐。下无礼以必有罪。是以君臣有礼。位次不乱。百姓有礼。国家自治。
五曰。绝飨弃欲。明弁诉讼。其百姓之讼。一日千事。一日尚尔。况乎累歳。须治讼者。得利为常。见贿聴钀。便有财之讼。如石投水。乏者之讼。似水投石。是以贫民。则不知所由。臣道亦於焉阙。
六曰。惩恶劝善。古之良典。是以无惹人善。见恶必匡。其谄诈者。则为覆国家之利器。为绝人民之锋剑。亦侫媚者。对上则好说下过。逢下则诽谤上失。其如此人。皆无忠於君。无仁於民。是大乱之本也。
七曰。人各有任掌。宜不滥。其贤哲任官。颂音则起。奸者有官。祸乱则繁。世少生知。尅念作圣。事无大少。得人必治。时无急缓。遇贤自寛。因此国家永久。社稷无危。故古圣王。为官以求人。不求官。
八曰。群卿百寮。早朝晏退。公事靡盬。终日难尽。是以遅朝不逮于急。早退必事不尽。
九曰。信是义本。毎事有信。其善恶成败。要在于信。君臣共信。何事不成。君臣无信。万事悉败。
十曰。绝忿弃瞋。不怒人违。人皆有心。心各有执。彼是则我非。我是则彼非。我必非圣。彼必非愚。共是凡夫耳。是非之理。谁能可定。相共贤愚。如环无端。是以彼人虽瞋。还恐我失。我独虽得。従众同举。
十一曰。明察功过。赏罚必当。日者赏不在功。罚不在罚。执事群卿。宜明赏罚。
十二曰。国司国造。勿歛百姓。国非二君。民无两主。率土兆民。以王为主。所任官司。皆是王臣。何敢与公赋歛百姓。
十三曰。诸任官者。同知职掌。或知职掌。或病或使。有阙於事。然得知之日。和如曾识。其以非与闻。勿防公务。
十四曰。群卿百寮。无有嫉妬。我既嫉人。人亦嫉我。嫉妬之患。不知其极。所以智胜於己则不悦。才优於己则嫉妬。是以五百之。乃令遇贤。千载以难待一圣。其不得圣贤。何以治国。
十五曰。背私向公。是臣之道矣。凡夫人有私必有恨。有憾必非同。非同则以私妨公。憾起则违制害法。故初章云。上下和谐。其亦是情欤。
十六曰。使民以时。古之良典。故冬月有间。以可使民。従春至秋。农桑之节。不可使民。其不农何食。不桑何服。
十七曰。夫事不可断独。必与众宜论。少事是轻。不可必众。唯逮论大事。若疑有失。故与众相弁。辞则得理。
圣德太子《十七条宪法》
推古天皇十二年夏四月丙寅朔。戊辰。
一曰。以和为贵。无忤为宗。人皆有党。亦少达者。是以或不顺君父。乍违于隣里。然上和下睦。谐於论事。则事理自通。何事不成。
二曰。笃敬三宝。三宝者佛法僧也。则四生终归。万国之极宗。何世何人非贵是法。人鲜尤恶。能教従之。其不归三宝。何以直枉。
三曰。承诏必谨。君则天之。臣则地之。天覆地载。四时顺行。方气得通。地欲覆天。则致坏耳。是以君言臣承。上行下靡。故承诏必慎。不谨自败。
四曰。群卿百寮。以礼为本。其治民之本。要在乎礼。上不礼而下非齐。下无礼以必有罪。是以君臣有礼。位次不乱。百姓有礼。国家自治。
五曰。绝飨弃欲。明弁诉讼。其百姓之讼。一日千事。一日尚尔。况乎累歳。须治讼者。得利为常。见贿聴钀。便有财之讼。如石投水。乏者之讼。似水投石。是以贫民。则不知所由。臣道亦於焉阙。
六曰。惩恶劝善。古之良典。是以无惹人善。见恶必匡。其谄诈者。则为覆国家之利器。为绝人民之锋剑。亦侫媚者。对上则好说下过。逢下则诽谤上失。其如此人。皆无忠於君。无仁於民。是大乱之本也。
七曰。人各有任掌。宜不滥。其贤哲任官。颂音则起。奸者有官。祸乱则繁。世少生知。尅念作圣。事无大少。得人必治。时无急缓。遇贤自寛。因此国家永久。社稷无危。故古圣王。为官以求人。不求官。
八曰。群卿百寮。早朝晏退。公事靡盬。终日难尽。是以遅朝不逮于急。早退必事不尽。
九曰。信是义本。毎事有信。其善恶成败。要在于信。君臣共信。何事不成。君臣无信。万事悉败。
十曰。绝忿弃瞋。不怒人违。人皆有心。心各有执。彼是则我非。我是则彼非。我必非圣。彼必非愚。共是凡夫耳。是非之理。谁能可定。相共贤愚。如环无端。是以彼人虽瞋。还恐我失。我独虽得。従众同举。
十一曰。明察功过。赏罚必当。日者赏不在功。罚不在罚。执事群卿。宜明赏罚。
十二曰。国司国造。勿歛百姓。国非二君。民无两主。率土兆民。以王为主。所任官司。皆是王臣。何敢与公赋歛百姓。
十三曰。诸任官者。同知职掌。或知职掌。或病或使。有阙於事。然得知之日。和如曾识。其以非与闻。勿防公务。
十四曰。群卿百寮。无有嫉妬。我既嫉人。人亦嫉我。嫉妬之患。不知其极。所以智胜於己则不悦。才优於己则嫉妬。是以五百之。乃令遇贤。千载以难待一圣。其不得圣贤。何以治国。
十五曰。背私向公。是臣之道矣。凡夫人有私必有恨。有憾必非同。非同则以私妨公。憾起则违制害法。故初章云。上下和谐。其亦是情欤。
十六曰。使民以时。古之良典。故冬月有间。以可使民。従春至秋。农桑之节。不可使民。其不农何食。不桑何服。
十七曰。夫事不可断独。必与众宜论。少事是轻。不可必众。唯逮论大事。若疑有失。故与众相弁。辞则得理。
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Starting with the wrong premise
I went on a backpacking trip to Si Chuan in China a few weeks ago (29 Aug to 5 Sept. Yup, I haven't blog about that trip yet. Feeling a bit lazy about it).
As usual, I was backpacking, though honestly, this wasn't very rough trip. Travelling with me was a friend who was backpacking for the first time. I had warned him many times about how I travel, but we still ran into a bit of friction during the trip.
One of the arguments we got into was air-conditioning. For my backpack trips, I always stay in guesthouses, and that typically means fan-rooms (no air-conditioning), shared bathrooms and toilets, and no hot showers.
When we got an fan room in Chengdu, my friend wasn't too happy about it. He argued that airconditioning only costs an extra 10yuan per person (Singapore $2) per night, and there was no reason to "suffer" for the want of saving that $2. Before I countered back, he went, "yes, yes, yes. I know, you've said it. We are backpacking."
I did not argue back. It wasn't just because he already said what I was going to say. But honestly, I do find his reasoning "logical", and I did find an argument like "we are backpacking" sounding pretty hollow. Yet, I found there was something problematic. As logical as he reasoning might be, I could not embrace it.
The next day, we did switch to an airconditioned room when one become available. I just wasn't going to argue over a trival thing. Not for a mere $2. (It would be a different matter if it costs $50 more per night).
But I could not help thinking about what's wrong with the argument. It took me quite a while to figure it out. That was when I found what I had learned in a recent course on Critical Thinking pretty useful.
What was wrong was not the logic or conclusion. What was wrong was the "premise".
Here what I learned from the Critical Thinking course, a "premise" is a set fact or assumption. For a given set of premises, a conclusion is either logical or illogical. If it is logical, then you can't argue against it.
Here's the premises my friend started with:
- airconditioning only costs an additional SGD$2 per person per night
- we all could more than afford that amount of money
- no aircon = suffering
Hence his conclusion was : it does not make sense not to take the aircon room and suffering for not spending an additional $2.
I must say that for the given premises, his conclusion was perfectly logical and I could not argue with that.
This is when it becomes clear to me why I can't accept his reasoning: it wasn't the logic. It was the premise. I do not share the premise that "no aircon = suffering"! I do not have aircon at home. I am used to sleeping without airconditioning. I don't even switch on the fan unless the heat becomes unbearable!
Thus, the premises for me are like this:
- I don't need airconditioning
- using aircon costs another $2
- using aircon increases my carbon footprint
Thus, my conclusion is "using airconditioning is not necessary and thus wasteful". And my conclusion is logical too.
So what so significant about this understanding? Well, I finally realised why some times we find other so "illogical" or we don't understand why others can't accept our arguments when we are so "logical". The problem is we start with the wrong premise. Or rather, we start with the premises which are valid for us and forgot that perhaps other people do not share the same premises.
Thus, from my friend's point of view, he could not understand why I chose to "suffer", because he started with the premise that "no-aircon=suffering". For me, I thought he was just being pampered and wasteful because I had not understood it was "suffering" to him.
Once I understood that, I was more forgiving towards his demand for airconditioning.
This episode also highlighted to me "suffering" is really subjective and is a matter of how we choose to react to the circumstances.
As usual, I was backpacking, though honestly, this wasn't very rough trip. Travelling with me was a friend who was backpacking for the first time. I had warned him many times about how I travel, but we still ran into a bit of friction during the trip.
One of the arguments we got into was air-conditioning. For my backpack trips, I always stay in guesthouses, and that typically means fan-rooms (no air-conditioning), shared bathrooms and toilets, and no hot showers.
When we got an fan room in Chengdu, my friend wasn't too happy about it. He argued that airconditioning only costs an extra 10yuan per person (Singapore $2) per night, and there was no reason to "suffer" for the want of saving that $2. Before I countered back, he went, "yes, yes, yes. I know, you've said it. We are backpacking."
I did not argue back. It wasn't just because he already said what I was going to say. But honestly, I do find his reasoning "logical", and I did find an argument like "we are backpacking" sounding pretty hollow. Yet, I found there was something problematic. As logical as he reasoning might be, I could not embrace it.
The next day, we did switch to an airconditioned room when one become available. I just wasn't going to argue over a trival thing. Not for a mere $2. (It would be a different matter if it costs $50 more per night).
But I could not help thinking about what's wrong with the argument. It took me quite a while to figure it out. That was when I found what I had learned in a recent course on Critical Thinking pretty useful.
What was wrong was not the logic or conclusion. What was wrong was the "premise".
Here what I learned from the Critical Thinking course, a "premise" is a set fact or assumption. For a given set of premises, a conclusion is either logical or illogical. If it is logical, then you can't argue against it.
Here's the premises my friend started with:
- airconditioning only costs an additional SGD$2 per person per night
- we all could more than afford that amount of money
- no aircon = suffering
Hence his conclusion was : it does not make sense not to take the aircon room and suffering for not spending an additional $2.
I must say that for the given premises, his conclusion was perfectly logical and I could not argue with that.
This is when it becomes clear to me why I can't accept his reasoning: it wasn't the logic. It was the premise. I do not share the premise that "no aircon = suffering"! I do not have aircon at home. I am used to sleeping without airconditioning. I don't even switch on the fan unless the heat becomes unbearable!
Thus, the premises for me are like this:
- I don't need airconditioning
- using aircon costs another $2
- using aircon increases my carbon footprint
Thus, my conclusion is "using airconditioning is not necessary and thus wasteful". And my conclusion is logical too.
So what so significant about this understanding? Well, I finally realised why some times we find other so "illogical" or we don't understand why others can't accept our arguments when we are so "logical". The problem is we start with the wrong premise. Or rather, we start with the premises which are valid for us and forgot that perhaps other people do not share the same premises.
Thus, from my friend's point of view, he could not understand why I chose to "suffer", because he started with the premise that "no-aircon=suffering". For me, I thought he was just being pampered and wasteful because I had not understood it was "suffering" to him.
Once I understood that, I was more forgiving towards his demand for airconditioning.
This episode also highlighted to me "suffering" is really subjective and is a matter of how we choose to react to the circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)