Planned vs. Self-Emergent (cntd.) Now that it seems obvious a self-emergent life is superior to a planned life not only in originality, interestingness, creativity and possibility to greatness, but also in sustainability, why do we find so few willing to live this way? A self-emergent life is process driven not goal driven. Each self-emergent life is like an experiment: no good or happy ending is guaranteed. A self-emergent life is full of the unknown and uncertain and strange: at any moment, you don't know what you will become, and indeed the whole life is about becoming. How many smart people, who could be much greater, have sufficed with a well-planned secure life because of fearing the unknown and uncertain and strange? But the self doesn't erase, and from time to time, it manifests its thirsty in impulses. To soothe the constantly suppressed curious self, one takes comforts from small contentment such as playing music instruments or little pleasures of material indulgence or simply holds on to a long-dead God. Human life has thus become more banal and mediocre: each human being a made product; schools factories producing such products; societies big production machines; academia a production machine too (of papers); and love life passionless (loveless). It is cowardice and weakness (not stupidity) that makes mediocre. Courage and strength is more important for achieving greatness than intelligence. (If it were not cowardice or weakness, why do you think I hide myself in the Huron Towers, surrounded by books, music CDs and movie DVDs, sitting in the super comfy LazBoy chair with Pinot noir, dreaming of the ecstasy of those dancers who put body and soul into their actions?!) Even more than a century ago, when Nietzsche waged his war against German idealism and Christianity and morality to liberate humanity, he had seen all these clear-mindedly. Yet nothing has changed since then except that materialism has replaced idealism, therefore, worse. The states or the governors of people probably fear the self of individuals more than individuals fear it themselves. For a state or any government, the priority goal is to keep its ruling power, and what's best for people and humanity only comes after. They all know too well the importance of controlling people's mind for keeping and solidifying its ruling power. The ancient Chinese emperors were the masters of this trick: for thousands of years, they were able to rule a large state without any modern transportation and information technologies precisely because they had managed to control people's mind with Confucius moralities (wives must be loyal to husbands, citizens must be loyal to the government, and government officials must be loyal to the emperor). They had injected and re-enforced Confucius moralities into the mind of Chinese marvelously through a government official selection and promotion system: a person from any families (poor or rich, royal or common) could take an exam to become part of the ruling power. To win out in this exam, one had to spend years learning tons of Confucius doctrine related books by heart and Confucius moralities were naturally printed into their conscience: no matter where they were sent to govern and how far away from the emperor, they would still feel guilty if they didn't follow those moralities. According to Prof. Lin, this system and the content of the exam (math was initially included in the exam but eliminated later for the emperors apparently could not see the role of math in helping maintain their ruling power) had drawn the brightest Chinese to the army of government officials, which eventually led to lacking modern science development (which was founded on math and laboratory experiments) in China. And consequently, in a short one-hundred-year period starting in the mid eighteenth century, from its leading position in economy and technology, China had fallen far behind western countries where the industry revolution occurred fed by modern science. I think he is very right. I also think this government official promotion system also explains why in history China has never achieved what has been achieved in classic music in the western world though there was considerable achievement in Chinese literature: poetry writing was part of the exam. In the western world, while capitalism developed after the destruction of Feudalism, democracy grew with free market economies that were spurred by the industry revolution. But at the mean time, materialism has taken control of people's mind, and God continues to have a significant market. Are we so sure that the governments or some parties haven't taken advantage of materialism or religion for their own interests? How many people questioned its soundness when the US launched the war against Iraq six years ago claiming it a threat to Americans? How many Americans cast their presidential votes based on their solid understandings of issues and how many seriously think about the issues? And why so many economically disadvantaged church goers have supported policies that obviously favor the rich? Wasn't I appalled by the enthusiasm that the audiences exhibited in those political campaigns responding to simple empty slogans uttered by the candidates with no facts or reasoning whatsoever? And how strangely they reminded me of Communist Party meetings in the Chinese Cultural Revolution! The danger that the ultimate benefits of people and prosperity of humanity is easily sacrificed for the self-interests of states or governments to maintain or facilitate their governance exists everywhere, maybe to different extents.
	Previous	Next