2025-12-01 20:02:00
金庸先生在《笑傲江湖》中写道：
只要有人的地方就有恩怨，有恩怨就会有江湖，人就是江湖。
崇高的革命理想，需要的。
面包，也是需要的。
然而，理想与面包，孰轻孰重？
理想需要代价，这个代价极大的可能是面包。
倘若为了理想而不优先考虑面包，那么「中道崩卒」却近乎是一种必然。
更讽刺的是，通向理想的路和获得面包的路往往截然相反。为了理想，便得不到面包；为了得到面包，会背弃理想。
伟人之所以是伟人，最重要的是他可以自洽地背弃理想获得面包，又用获得的面包哺育理想。
普通人，万难做到。
那么，在理想与面包之间，我们需以最基本的人性为一切考量的出发点。再宏大的商业愿景，再精巧的技术路径，背后都是人，都是恩怨，都是江湖。
只不过，伟人写下宏大的历史，普通人活出具体的人生。江湖恩怨中，能保持对人性的基本尊重和理解，已然不易。
Folo 刚出现，我便很喜欢。那时，已经没有继续用 Inoreader，初代 Reeder 也有着各种 bug。
但随着一些功能的增加，我意识到它不再是一个纯粹的 RSS 阅读器。
恰好，全新的 Reeder 开始内测，我导入订阅后，一切都很熟悉。
虽然比起初代的 Reeder 有了一些微妙变化，我还是弃用了 Folo，几乎没怎么考虑。
使用 RSS 的人，可能多少有点 old school，至少我个人在这些方面很呆板、很执拗。
RSS 阅读器于我而言不是单纯的信息集散地，而是我观察外部世界的窗口。通过 RSS 订阅，我可以知道博主们的喜怒哀乐，可以了解世界发生了什么，可以从纷杂繁复中观察到一些趋势。这是订阅 newsletter 做不到的。
Newsletter 所呈现的是编辑者的品味，也是一种算法。而 RSS 才是真正的、属于个人对抗算法的私有品味。
算法是用过去的自己，预测现在的自己，喂养未来的自己。
而 RSS 是一种主动性的宣示：
最重要的是：我要拥有「无聊」的权力。
RSS 订阅里会有大量「没什么信息量」的内容，像是博主的日常，没什么营养的观察，平淡的生活记录。算法会把这些过滤掉，因为它们「不值得浪费注意力」。
但恰恰是这些「无聊」，构成了真实的人，有血有肉的人。算法认为它们不值得,但写作者记录的，正是对他们自己而言值得记录的，是人之所以为人的部分。我通过 RSS 看到的不是「内容」，而是一个个具体的人的生活瞬间。
Web 2.0 以来，我们的品味越来越表演化，我们分享我们想让别人看到我们在看的东西，我们的阅读行为成为了社交资本、赚取流量的资本。（我这些年在博客中写的《值得关注的内容平台》，在电子报中的策展，就是在表演。）
而 RSS 是不被看见的阅读。我不需要在阅读器中知道他人订阅了什么，谁在默默关注我。这是一个本该属于自己的空间。
在一个「一切都要被看见、被量化、被转化为资本」的时代，「不被看见」或许是一种反抗，更重要的，它是一种天然的自我权力。
RSS 保护的不只是品味的自主性，还有阅读的私密性。那种不需要向任何人交代，不需要产生任何社交价值的纯粹阅读。
有人的地方，就有江湖。
希望，我们可以在 RSS 中相忘于江湖。
这正是：
滚滚长江东逝水，浪花淘尽英雄。是非成败转头空。青山依旧在，几度夕阳红。
白发渔樵江渚上，惯看秋月春风。一壶浊酒喜相逢。古今多少事，都付笑谈中。
Previous |
2025-10-18 16:21:00
The essence of learning lies not in acquiring new knowledge, but in reconstructing cognition.
Through learning, we dismantle old frameworks of understanding and reassemble our perception of the world.
When we cease to learn, we close ourselves off from the outside world. No longer listening to new voices, no longer questioning old beliefs, no longer willing to be changed.
This doesn't happen instantly, but through gradual solidification: thought becomes wrapped in habit, mind tamed by comfort.
When we cling to our experiences and conclusions, our world begins to shrink. We are no longer moved by the world, nor can we move it.
True learning is continuous flow. It means acknowledging our incompleteness, having the courage to constantly renew ourselves. Each new understanding is a small rebirth; each shaken certainty, a starting point for growth.
Zen practice lies not in seeking answers, but in maintaining beginner's mind: seeing things anew in each moment.
Growth is not upward, but inward.
When we see beneath the surface of experience a broader, more nuanced self. In that moment, we are still learning, still flowing.
2025-10-07 03:15:00
【注】：
化用吳剛伐桂典故。↩
長川，此處指特茹河（Rio Tejo）。↩
里斯本素有「七丘之城」（Cidade das Sete Colinas）之稱。↩
古塔，指貝倫塔（Torre de Belém），建於 1514-1520 年，為大航海時代地標。↩
伽馬凌波，取達伽馬大橋（Ponte Vasco da Gama）橫亙特茹河之意象，該橋以首位繞航好望角抵達印度的葡萄牙航海家命名。↩
萬邦水榭，取萬國公園（Parque das Nações）園林景觀之意象，該處為 1998 年里斯本世博會舊址。↩
化用《莊子·逍遙游》「鵬之徙於南冥也，水擊三千里，摶扶搖而上者九萬里」。↩
化用玉兔搗藥之月宮意象。↩
2025-10-06 02:53:00
I opened Readwise Reader one day, searching for an article I'd saved weeks ago. Instead, I faced 3,000+ saved items, hundreds of highlights, and a stark realization: I had built an information graveyard. Collecting obsessively but processing minimally. The highlights were there, but the understanding? Nowhere to be found.
In the AI era, our core challenge has shifted from information scarcity to cognitive bandwidth. We encounter vast information daily, yet only a fraction becomes internalized. When we skim rapidly or highlight mechanically, information flows through us like water through a sponge, never truly penetrating.
That moment became the catalyst for the CETDE framework. Grounded in the DIKW pyramid (Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom), it transforms information into knowledge and wisdom capable of reshaping cognitive structures.
Collection transcends mere hoarding. It is conscious selection. The core principle is consolidating information gathering into a single place, reducing cognitive load from constant platform-switching.
In Practice:
Neuroscience confirms that learning without emotional engagement is ephemeral. With limited cognitive bandwidth, choosing wisely surpasses working harder.
The encoding phase centers on rapidly organizing information structure rather than achieving deep comprehension. It converts data into information through preliminary processing. Think of this as a translator making sense of a foreign text: you're making the content comprehensible without yet integrating it into your personal knowledge system.
In Practice:
The transfer phase represents the transition from short-term to long-term memory. It establishes preliminary understanding while allowing information to flow naturally. If Encode is like understanding what a map says, Transfer is like memorizing the route so you can navigate without constantly checking.
In Practice:
Buffering between Transfer and Distill allows information to resurface at opportune moments, providing unexpected connections when you're ready for deeper processing.
The distillation phase is the process's core, where deep understanding is established through cognitive conflict, active construction, and emotional anchoring. This forms knowledge authentically yours.
In Practice:
At this stage, notes transcend simple records to become knowledge assets infused with personal reflection. You know not only the "what" but the "why." These distilled notes become ready-to-use materials for writing and creating.
The expression phase transforms knowledge into creative output. Writing and dialogue themselves constitute the deepest processing, testing understanding's completeness while revealing new connections.
Expression should emerge naturally as awareness's spontaneous manifestation rather than forced production. When understanding matures, the desire to share naturally arises. This is when I know the knowledge has truly become mine.
The CETDE framework transcends methodology. It is a path of cognitive cultivation. These five steps correspond to five dimensions of deepening awareness:
These dimensions aren't strictly sequential but different facets operating simultaneously, mutually deepening in a spiral upward path.
Let me share a recent exchange that illustrates this practice. I was watching a video that mentioned the possibility of an unknown planet in our solar system:
Me: So the solar system is definitely a single-star system?
Claude: That's the scientific consensus based on current observations.
Me: But how confident are we in this consensus? What's the actual certainty level?
Claude: Very high confidence, though there are hypotheses about distant objects like Planet Nine...
Me: What if there's something beyond our detection range? Could it be a brown dwarf? A primordial black hole?
Claude: Interesting. Those are actual scientific hypotheses. The outer solar system remains poorly observed...
Me: And if such an object exists, how might that connect to the synchronized emergence of civilizations during the Axial Age? Could cosmic factors influence human consciousness?
This wasn't random questioning. It was the Zen practice of "raising doubt" (起疑情) applied to collaborative knowledge inquiry with AI, particularly deepening the Distill phase of CETDE.
The Essence: Continuously engage and refine doubt. Not skepticism but a yearning to transcend established cognitive boundaries. This becomes the driving force enabling continuous deepening in AI dialogue.
Three Key Practices:
The practice of repeatedly questioning seemingly certain conclusions allows deep insights to surface. Most crucially, raising doubt preserves cognitive independence in the algorithmic age. The "unknowing knowing" within doubt is precisely the human wisdom AI cannot replace.
The CETDE framework's core insight: deep processing is an attitude. It requires reverence toward knowledge and patience toward cognition.
In the age of information overload, remember:
The framework provides a theoretical reference point. What matters is discovering and verifying these principles within your own experience. Tools like Readwise Reader, Tana, and Mymind can support this practice, each excelling at different stages. But the specific tools matter less than the underlying principles.
A priori knowledge forms the foundation for effectively using AI, while the practice of raising doubt provides the wisdom to apply this knowledge. Between question and answer, between known and unknown, we discover insights unique to our age.
When we truly grasp CETDE's essence, we discover its five dimensions are actually the same awareness manifesting at different levels, ultimately pointing toward a single goal: transforming information into wisdom, maintaining cognitive independence and depth in the digital age.
2025-09-13 05:40:00
Recently, a friend persistently labels me as a 'leftist'. I suspect this label serves more to reinforce his own political identity than to accurately describe mine.
However, I have to say, unfortunately, I am a classical liberal.
As a classical liberal, I believe that protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law form the foundation of a just society. Free markets and limited government represent the most effective means to maximize both personal freedom and societal welfare. This philosophy recognizes that voluntary exchange and competition, within a framework of clear rules and property rights, generate prosperity while preserving human dignity.
Yet, classical liberalism is not dogmatic. It recognizes real challenges like market failures, information asymmetries, and inequality. When markets fail to produce optimal outcomes due to monopolies, externalities, or genuine public goods, targeted interventions may be necessary. The key is to ensure that these interventions are proportionate, evidence based, and aimed at restoring market mechanisms rather than replacing them whenever possible.
This nuanced approach defies simple left right categorization. Classical liberals may support progressive taxation to fund essential public goods while opposing excessive regulation. They might advocate for strong antitrust enforcement while championing free trade. They often defend civil liberties against both corporate overreach and government surveillance.
In fact, I believe reducing any individual to a simple 'leftist' or 'rightist' misses the point entirely. Human beings are so complex, how do we define a man as a leftist or rightist? It's quite common for someone to hold left-leaning views on certain issues while aligning with the right on others. We each hold views that may align with different parts of the political spectrum depending on the issue. A person might support market solutions for economic efficiency while advocating for strong social safety nets for moral reasons. They might champion individual liberty while acknowledging the need for collective action on climate change.
This complexity is not inconsistency. I must point out that it reflects the multifaceted nature of both human values and societal challenges. The world, as I have noted before, is beautifully multifaceted precisely because it can accommodate all things while maintaining its own natural order and rhythm. Political wisdom lies not in forcing this complexity into rigid ideological boxes, but in finding principled ways to navigate it.
Classical liberalism offers such a framework: one rooted in respect for individual dignity, skeptical of concentrated power whether public or private, and committed to institutions that allow diverse perspectives to flourish through peaceful exchange and democratic deliberation.
2025-09-07 03:49:00
法眼文益禪師參訪羅漢桂琛禪師。
一問：「上座此行往何處？」
答：「行腳去。」
再問：「行腳作甚？」
答：「不知。」
桂琛云：「不知最親切。」
法眼當下有省。
近來細讀此段公案，頗覺有味。
世人每以為「知」能近真，孰料「知」一旦成執，便以觀念隔開現實。求學之道在「讀萬卷書，行萬里路」，其要旨固在消除無知，然仍須明辨。
「無知」是能力與意願的缺席，而「不知」是界限感與開放性的並存。前者閉塞世界，後者把世界還於當下。
禪宗言「親切」，非世俗之溫潤如玉、彬彬有禮，實乃直面宇宙實相而不為概念所蔽。吾人之「知」多來自既定框架，如戴有色眼鏡觀世間萬象，豈是本來面目？
卡爾維諾嘗言：
我對任何唾手可得、快速、出自本能、即興、含混的事物沒有信心。我相信緩慢、平和、細水流長的力量，踏實，冷靜。
此語正點出「不知」之真義。非信馬由韁之隨意，實需極大定力之修行。真正的「不知」要求我們克制大腦急于歸類之衝動，耐心觀察，靜心傾聽現實本身之聲息。
法眼的「不知」，便是放下對行腳之種種預設——不為抵達某地，不為成就某事，只是純然地行走。此純粹狀態，反令其心扉洞開，得聞妙諦。若其心有既定目標，恐難領會「不知最親切」之深意矣。
現今，吾輩較前人更易陷入「知」所建構的幻象。AI 使人誤以為資訊等同理解，社交媒體令人混淆觀點與智慧。然真正之般若，往往來自知曉何時當放下所知，重新面對實相。
是故，「不知最親切」既非反智，亦非逃避。乃對真實之忠誠，對隨時被現實修正之勇氣。以此姿態面對工作、學問、人倫，便可發現，最為親切者，是那份願意重新開始、持續學習之開放心境。
正如維特根斯坦所言：「凡不可言說者，必須保持沉默。」(Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.) 然於此沉默中，恰蘊含最豐富之可能。
當下如是，便是「不知最親切」。
