Chinese: 吳爾軒的後設猜想
English: Narvis the Cloud's Metahypotheses
Japanese: ナルビスのメタ予想
Latin: Narvis Nubes Metahypotheses

本網站內容之使用，請參閱著作權聲明書。
To use the contents on this website, please read Copyright Statement.

2014-03-30

自然老死聲明書
Natural Death Statement




茲聲明本人生命觀之絕對宗旨如次，俾利法律上判斷： Here I state my absolute principles for my life, for clarifying legal judgments, as follows:
§ 1
本人信仰佛教淨土宗，以自然老死為目標。 I believe in Pure Land Buddhism, and I will keep alive until natural death.
§ 2 I 本人在任何情況下均不自殺，不意圖自殺，不佯裝自殺。
 I will never commit suicide, intend to suicide, or pretend to suicide under any conditions.

II 前項自殺，係指任何致使自我死亡之積極作為[1]。 The word "suicide" in the preceding paragraph means any active actions causing death to myself[1].
§ 3 I 本人在任何情況下均不自我傷害。 I will never commit a self-harm under any conditions.

II 前項自我傷害，係指任何致使自我患有物理上疾病之積極作為。但不包括：
  1. 以醫學治療為目的之用藥或手術。
  2. 符合自我調節功能及自我修復功能之日常生活。
 The word "self-harm" in the preceding paragraph means any active actions causing physical diseases to myself. But it does not include:
  1. pharmacies or surgeries for medical therapies.
  2. daily activities under the self-adjustment function and the self-recovery function.

III 即使本人因治療失當或因生活不檢致死，非經調查不得排除他殺之可能。 Even if I dies as a result of an improper therapy or of an incautious activity, one shall not exclude the possibility of murder without investigation.


Notes:

[1] 倘為謀生不擇手段，乃佛教所不許，故在非常情況下不得已之消極不作為，應非屬自我傷害。 Buddhism forbids me to survive unscrupulously, so the helplessly passive inactions under specific conditions shall not deem self-harms.
作者： 於
標籤：

2014-03-27

中立之不可能
The Impossibility of Neutrality[1]



利慾薰心自身，無所謂對錯[2]；可是除了利慾薰心之外一無所有的傢伙，不符合「人」的定義[3]。 There is neither "right greed" nor "wrong greed"[2]; however, someone who is nothing but greed is not suitable for the name of "human"[3].
因而我面對利慾薰心的策略是：
  1. 身為「人類」，我放任它。
  2. 身為「人」，我抗拒它。
  3. 身為兩者的合成，我戰勝它。
 So whenever I come up against greed:
  1. as a "Homo sapiens", I overlook it.
  2. as a "human", I overcome it.
  3. as a combination of the two, I overwhelm it.


Notes:

[1] 本文標題，係啟發自台灣太陽花學運，實為本文內容之延伸。蓋凡屬人類者，中立於萬物鬥爭則無以倖存；凡屬人者，一旦宣告中立則言行陷於沉寂。誠然中立僅成立於霎那，故曰不可能。 The title is inspired by Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan, and is extended from the content. It is that every Homo sapiens cannot survive in the conflict with the environment with his situation neutral, and every human can only speaks and acts in silence after he claim his situation neutral. So it is true that neutrality holds for a split second, wherein the impossibility shows.
[2] 利慾薰心乃功利主義之基礎，目的在謀取自身利益最大化。惟利益之有無，純屬主觀感受，不可客觀衡量，是以無所謂對錯。 Greed is the base of Utilitarianism, which drive us to pursue the maximum of our own interest. However, the interest is a subjective sense, rather than an objective evaluation, so we can imagine neither "right greed" nor "wrong greed".
[3] 人之定義，係採用漢娜·鄂蘭之定義。 The definition of "human" refers to the Hannah Arendt's definition.
作者： 於
標籤：

2014-03-25

思想的高牆
The High Wall of Thought



我的用字遣詞都有其根據，它們散布在無邊無際的書海及網際網路之海。它們之所以冷僻，蓋因它們的定義極為周延，它們的脈絡其來有自。我就是利用精密的言語構築一道難以跨越的高牆，確保我的訪客是我的嘉賓。 The words in my articles are tenable. You can find them in the sea of books or internet. They are strange to someone for their strict definitions and histories. I am therefore by such a precise language constructing a high wall hard to climb over, in order to guarantee my visitors are my guests.
作者： 於
標籤：

2014-03-17

絕望之禁止
The Desperation Ban



我將持續呼喊！直到人族的覆滅！ We shall keep calling! Until the creatural extinction!
我將持續吆喝！直到物類的破滅！ We shall keep yelling! Until the substantial destruction!
我將持續嘶吼！直到星群的殞滅！ We shall keep crying! Until the universal exhaustion!
我是處在無限時空中能量有限的超限原動力！ We are in the infinite spacetime, with finite energy, the transfinite power!
作者： 於 沒有留言:
標籤：

2014-03-15

視覺場連續原則
Visual Field Continuity Principles



創作，係指創作行為客體之成品[1]。 A creation means an object completed through a creative behavior[1].
創作具有一元視覺風格[2]。 A creation is with a unitary visual style[2].
相鄰創作之視覺風格不相容者，發生視覺場不連續。但經單層後設視覺理論可詮釋為相容者，不在此限[3]。 A visual field discontinuity occurs, if the visual styles of adjacent creations are inconsistent, except that they can be interpreted to be inconsistent by a single level metavisual theory[3].
公共空間發生視覺場不連續者，應合乎比例原則儘速更正其為連續[4]。 A public space is with a visual field discontinuity shall be revised for its discontinuity within proportionality as soon as possible[4].


Notes:

[1] 本項解釋如次：
  1. 半成品尚不具確定之視覺風格，此時檢討其視覺場連續與否，了無實益，故加以限定。惟創作行為客體雖未經創作行為主體宣告為成品，但可確定或合理推定創作行為將永遠中斷者，逕行視為成品。
  2. 創作所在地亦為創作。
 We explain this paragraph as follows:
  1. Since we cannot conclude an incomplete creation with a visual type, it is non-beneficial for us to criticize its visual field continuity, so that our critiques are further limited. However, we simply deem an objective as a result of a creation behavior a complete creation, if we can confirm or reasonably presume the creation behavior is permanently interrupted, even if the subject of the creation behavior have not declared that he has completed the creation.
  2. The location of the creation is also a creation.
[2] 創作具有多元視覺風格係不可思議之態樣，不予討論。 We cannot imagine a creation with a multiplex visual type, so we do not take it into account.
[3] 本項係本條之中樞，用以規範相鄰創作間須維持視覺場連續，避免不連續造成之突兀感，俾利真實呈現創作之美。 This paragraph is the key of this article, and is used to regulate the maintenance for the visual field continuity of adjacent creations, in order to avoid the impurity due to a discontinuity, on purpose to truly show the beauty of the creations.
[4] 本項解釋如次：
  1. 公共空間，係指不特定多數人可以人眼直接看見之空間。
  2. 修正適用於半成品，而更正適用於成品。
  3. 如在創作群中僅特定創作引起視覺場不連續，得僅更正該特定創作。
 We explain this paragraph as follows:
  1. A public space means a space where non-specific people can directly see through their naked eyes.
  2. An amendment is applied to an incomplete creation, while a revision is applied to complete creation.
  3. If a certain creation causes a visual field continuity in a creation group, we may revise the certain creation.
作者： 於
標籤：

2014-03-11

評語
Comments for Articles



閱讀作文，其：
  1. 一以貫之若干新知者，評曰：神來之筆。
  2. 循序漸進若干新知者，評曰：大開眼界。
  3. 引領新知者，評曰：妙趣橫生。
  4. 提點習知者，評曰：鞭辟入裡。
  5. 詳談習知者，評曰：獲益良多。
  6. 冗述習知者，評曰：駑鈍。
  7. 立論空泛者，評曰：可憐。
  8. 自相矛盾者，評曰：可笑。
  9. 冷嘲熱諷者，評曰：可悲。
 Reading an article, if it:
  1. links up several innovations, we conclude it as "fantastic".
  2. guides us step by step to several innovations, we conclude it as "amazing".
  3. imports an innovation, we conclude it as "inspiring".
  4. summarizes the common senses, we conclude it as "impressive".
  5. introduces the common senses, we conclude it as "worthy".
  6. spins out the common senses, we conclude it as "foolish".
  7. is shallow, we conclude it as "poor".
  8. is inconsistent, we conclude it as "ridiculous".
  9. is malicious, we conclude it as "tragic".
作者： 於 沒有留言:
標籤：

2014-03-10

我的哲學
My Philosophy



我的皮膚是徐志摩，我的肉是馬克思，我的血是鄂蘭，我的骨架是羅素，我的骨髓是愛因斯坦，我的神經是康托爾，我的心是尼采，我的腦幹是康德，我的小腦是圖靈，我的大腦是維根斯坦，而我的精神是釋迦牟尼。 My skin is of Xu Zhimo, my flesh is of Marx, my blood is of Arendt, my skeleton is of Russell, my marrow is of Einstein, my nerve is of Cantor, my heart is of Nietzsche, my brainstem is of Kant, my cerebellum is of Turing, my cerebrum is of Wittgenstein, while my spirit is of Sakyamuni.
我對哲學的認知，是追隨維根斯坦在《哲學研究》[1]中所言：「哲學將一切事物簡單地置於我們眼前，既不解釋，亦不推論任何事物。——畢竟一切事物一覽無遺，沒有什麼好解釋的……我們又不妨將『哲學』這個名稱賦予先於各種新發現及新發明的那些可能的東西。」 My comprehension for philosophy follows what Wittgenstein said in his Philosophical Investigations[1]: " Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither explains nor deduces anything. —Since everything lies open to view, there is nothing to explain ... One might also give the name 'philosophy' to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions."
而我則承襲了維根斯坦的工作：「目的在於合乎邏輯地澄清思想。」並將他「不關心」的參考來源[2]，加以搜索、列舉、援引。 And I keep on the works of Wittgenstein, which "aims at the logical clarification of thoughts." I search, list and cite those sources, about which he did not care[2].


Notes:

[1] Wittgenstein (1953). Philosophical Investigations, §126. (Same)
[2] Wittgenstein (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Preface. (Same)
作者： 於
標籤：
訂閱： 文章 (Atom)