A brief talk about life (3) - Programming life (1)

Text/Su Boya

Foreword

I decided on this title almost a year ago, but I have never started writing it. Firstly, I was busy with many things, and secondly, my literary thoughts were blocked and I couldn't squeeze out a few words, so I had to write down a running account in my diary. The worst thing is that I can't even read the book very much. I took Mr. Zhang Zhongxing's "Composition Miscellanies" and flipped through it, hoping to find the feeling of "regaining old love". Unfortunately, it was not found. But I decided not to procrastinate any longer, and started writing right away, starting from the beginning, hoping that I would be able to write happily after writing a few lines.

Text

1

The phrase "programming life" is often said by enthusiastic computer programmers to describe themselves and computer programs. "Amphibious" life state. In the context of computer science, programs and software are not exactly equivalent, but in this article programs and software are completely equivalent. I once said in my article "A Brief Talk on Life" that the biggest difference between two physiologically normal people is often not the body, but the mind. Using computer terminology as a metaphor, computers with the same hardware configuration and different software installed will have different performance. A person's facial features, appearance, body shape, height, weight, etc. are all "hardware". Do these factors have any impact on a person's life? Sure, but it's not a deciding factor. The decisive factor is the "software" installed on a person, such as cultivation, knowledge, temperament, courage, courage, etc., which is the connotation of the word "program" in "Programmed Life". Let’s first define “program”. In this article, “program” and “software” both refer to everything in a person’s mind.

2

The core of the program is a person's ideological foundation and the basis for supporting a person's behavior. It includes many aspects, such as world view, family view, love view, marriage view, Outlook on life, values, etc. A person's program core consists of three main modules and answers two philosophical questions: First, what is the world in your eyes? Second, how do you survive in this world?

Module 1. Worldview

Values ??are the first important module of the program core. Everyone has their own view of the world, and most people think that their view of the world is correct. Some people think this world is beautiful, some people think this world is ugly. Two conflicting views cannot both be correct. That is to say, if two people discuss the same thing at the same time, if their views are conflicting, then at least one of them is wrong. When we take a test, we often get a score. Whether the question is multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, or essay, the teacher will give us a score based on our answers. When the scores of two people are different, it proves that the candidate with higher scores has a deeper understanding of the questions being tested than the candidate with low scores. Of course, the premise is that the teacher is an expert with profound knowledge in the field and has extremely high professional ethics. He will not favor any candidate and will only give scores objectively based on the quality of the answers. A person's view of the world is an essay question, and everyone can speak freely and express their views freely. Whose answer is better? This is a question worth thinking about. When we express our views on the world, we are talking about the world as we see it.

But there is only one "real world" in which we all live, and the world in our "eyes" may be completely different or even completely opposite to it. If that happens, who is right and who is wrong? When a person enthusiastically praises the beauty of the world with a smile on his or her face, is he or she right? When a person curses the darkness of this world with rage and passion, is he or she wrong? If a person scorns love and insists that love is the moon in the mirror, is he or she right? If a person regards love as his or her belief and never accepts the judgment that "love does not exist", is he or she wrong? If someone tells you that "friendship is the greatest thing in the world," is he or she right? If a person takes "There are no permanent friends in this world" as the truth in his heart, is he or she wrong? If a person passionately supports marriage and believes that marriage is the greatest invention of human society, is he or she right? If a person has been denigrating marriage since childhood and making fun of the institution of marriage as a big joke, is he or she wrong? … There are endless questions about the world, and everyone can answer them, but no one is ever given a grade for our answers. If only God would help us, since God knows everything, surely He can give us a score for our answer. If we all express our views on "love" and God scores us, I get 80 and you get 50, which means that my views on love are better than yours; if we all discuss "what is friendship" in front of God, God will Only giving me 40 points, but giving you 100 points, proves that my understanding of friendship is far inferior to yours; if... yes, if there really is God, and we are lucky enough to be able to communicate with God, our lives will not be so much confusion and troubles. Because God can play the role of a teacher, teach us a lot about the world, point out our shortcomings in certain aspects, and help us gradually move towards happiness and away from pain. It's a pity that I haven't discovered God yet. In fact, I don't believe in the existence of God at all. In any case, it is unrealistic to expect God to tell us who has a better view on a certain issue. In other words, God will not tell us who has a smaller distance between the "eyes of the world" and the "real world". We only Be willing to accept the fact that "we can turn in the answer sheet but we won't get a grade." However, even if God does not exist, the distance between everyone's "world in their eyes" and the "real world" is different. Just like everyone takes the same exam paper, even if no one corrects it, the quality of everyone's answers is different. of. The best situation is: the two worlds completely overlap, and the "world in one's eyes" is a shadow of the "real world"; the worst situation is: the two worlds are completely opposite, and there is no "world in one's eyes" at all. the shadow of the real world. The first situation is an excellent starting point for a person's life, while the second situation often makes a person's life path full of thorns. Gothel has a poem: We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us. (We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us.) Please remember this sentence, when a person thinks that the world has deceived him, There is often no intersection between the "world in his or her eyes" and the "real world" because he or she has read the world incorrectly.

Since the "world in the eyes" and the "real world" may have no intersection, how can we make the two worlds completely coincident or infinitely close? It's simple, just wear the right pair of glasses. For example, everyone is "myopic" when they are born, and everything they see is blurry, but they are not aware of the fact that they are "myopic". As we grow older and gradually "understand" the world, everyone's "world in their eyes" gradually takes shape.

Some people are never aware of their vision defects and have never seen the real world from birth to death; but some people accidentally know that they are short-sighted and are lucky enough to find glasses with the right power and finally see clearly. The incomparable real world, then I realized the gap between the "world in my eyes" and the "real world", and discovered that my understanding of this world had been wrong. Discovering your vision deficiency is the first step, finding the right glasses is the second. To be more specific, "discovering one's own visual defects" corresponds to a person's determination to discover the "real world"; and "finding suitable glasses" corresponds to a person's process of overcoming various difficulties, avoiding various misunderstandings in thinking, and finding the truth of the world. There are two levels here, the first level is determination to do it, and the second level is how to do it. If these two levels are not harmoniously unified, discovering the "real world" can only be a dream. Relatively speaking, "finding the right glasses" is more difficult than "finding one's own vision defect" because a person can spend a lifetime doing this with little success. "Discovering one's own visual impairment" is just a momentary awareness, although it may also involve a long-term process.

The above talked about the "world in the eyes" and the "real world", and the bridge between them: glasses with the right prescription. The worldview module in a person's mind responds to the first question - What is the world in your eyes? --Answer. As for the second question - how do you survive in this world? ——The answer is mainly answered by the two modules of values ????and outlook on life. The two modules are divided into two parts to explore respectively.

Module 2. Values

Values ??are the second important module of the program core. Values ??refer to things that a person considers valuable and cherishes them very much, such as friendship, love, family affection, family, career, money, reputation, dignity, freedom, life, honesty, passion, etc. If a person never cares about anything and will never defend anything, it can be said that the person's values ????have not been established. When a person begins to see the world with his or her heart rather than with his or her physical eyes, he or she will often see more and more values ??that others cannot see, and thus slowly establish his or her own values. People who have not yet established values ??are outside the scope of my discussion. The following discussion is limited to people who have already established values. I want to talk about the three levels that people tend to display when it comes to values.

The first level is just to establish values, which is the lowest level. There is nothing to say about this. Whether a person finds something in this world that attracts him and allows him to pursue it tirelessly is a state. Whether he is awakened completely depends on his luck and awareness. Although there are external factors, it mainly depends on himself. personal consciousness. The second level is to rank values. A person's value system is the sum of values, and within each value system, not all values ??have equal status. Some have a higher value status, and some have a lower value status. Arranging values ??from high to low within a person's value system can produce a value sequence. In other words, generating a sequence of values ??is ordering the values. There is no necessary correlation between the value sequences of any two people. They may be exactly the same or completely opposite. For example, one person's value sequence is life, freedom, dignity, family, career, reputation, love... and another person's value sequence is love, family, family, freedom, honesty, dignity... In one person's value system Within a company, not all values ??can live in harmony, as value conflicts often occur. As the name suggests, a value conflict is a conflict between two values. For example, "sacrifice one's life for righteousness" is an example of value conflict. When survival and justice conflict, some people choose survival and others choose justice.

There are many examples of value conflicts. For example, when a person has a happy family and meets a third person who makes his heart beat, family and passion constitute a pair of value conflicts; when a person is unable to take care of his career at the same time. When it comes to love, career and love constitute a pair of value conflicts; if a person truly loves his boyfriend (girlfriend), but the families of both parties are firmly opposed to their union and threaten to sever the relationship, family affection and love constitute a pair. Value conflict; if a person is insulted by others, and the other party promises to compensate him with money afterwards, on the condition that he gives up holding him accountable, at this time dignity and money constitute a pair of value conflicts... There are countless such examples, because value Conflict is everywhere. When a mature person faces a value conflict, his behavior is predictable based on his value sequence. This brings us to the third level: unconditional obedience to the value sequence. When a person faces the value conflict between survival and justice, if survival ranks at the front of his value sequence, abandon justice; when a person faces the value conflict between family and passion, and family ranks at the front of his value sequence, abandon passion; when a person faces the value conflict between family and passion, and family ranks at the front of his value sequence, abandon passion; If a person's career and love conflict, if love ranks at the top of the value sequence, give up career; if a person's love conflicts with family affection, and family affection ranks at the top of the value sequence, abandon love; if a person faces There is a conflict between the values ??of money and dignity, and money ranks higher than dignity in its value sequence, abandoning dignity.

Module 3, Outlook on Life

Outlook on life is the third important module of the program core. As mentioned earlier, we are all candidates taking the exam without a marking teacher, and the questions we answer are descriptive questions, not normative questions. That is to say, our answer is not a simple "yes" or "no", "right" or "wrong", "right" or "wrong", etc., but a specific statement of life's problems. To describe "life", we must first have an opinion about "life".

In "A Brief Talk about Life", I once said that life is an exam that includes many subjects, and everyone will get a report card when they leave the world. Apart from this, what is life? Life is a journey, you are the driver, not the passenger. You can choose your destination and route, you can decide when to speed up and when to slow down, and you can even stop the car and enjoy the scenery on the roadside. If you are just a passenger, you can only look at the scenery outside the window, but you do not even have the right to choose what scenery to look at; you can only get off when you arrive at the station, but cannot choose the route, nor can you predict the arrival time, or even Sometimes you don’t even know where you are going, and you are sitting in a car in a daze. When the driver urges you to get out of the car, you look at an unfamiliar “destination” with a confused look on your face. Life is a movie, you are the director, not the audience. You can decide which script to use, and you can also choose the actors to perform the scene. You can communicate and interact with each actor, so that the scene develops according to the script you choose. You know everything clearly. If you think of yourself as an audience, you can only sit in front of the big screen, watch characters appear and disappear, and nervously appreciate the unpredictable plots, letting your emotions fluctuate with the plot. Happy and sad at times, after the show ended, I was enveloped in an indescribable emotion for a long time, as if I had just finished a ethereal dream. Life is a game of chess, and there are masters and low players. When a master plays chess, he always focuses on the layout and gives full play to the maximum role of each chess piece. No matter how bad the situation is, he takes every step carefully with the spirit of never giving up. What he loses is what he gains, because the master knows very well that "win or lose" Often in a moment of thought", because masters always remember that "if one move goes wrong, everything will be lost". And what about playing chess with a low hand? I have no overall awareness and no idea how the situation is developing. I feel complacent when I get a piece, and I sigh when I lose a piece. I never see the connection between each move. I attack here on a whim, and suddenly I'm here again. Giving up for no reason, staring ahead, forgetting about the rear, immediately starting to think about a game of chess when the situation is not good, and not understanding the difference between a battle and a war.

(End)