WoRiRiRi
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
政统与道统
二
中国人又言“血统”。中国为一氏族社会,氏族即血统所成。
余尝论中国有政统与道统,而道统尤重。
中国五千年文化传统,有政统乱于上而道统犹存于下。
如秦灭六国,非由秦人统一中国,乃由中国人自臻于统一。秦二世而亡,而中国人之统一则仍继续。此乃中国人建立了中国,非由中国来产生出中国人。
故中国而夷狄则夷狄之,夷狄而中国则中国之。若中国人不遵中国人道理,则亦可认为非中国人。
故道统必尤尊于政统。中国人则该是一中国人,此乃道统血统之统一。“心血”两字连用,可显其义。
三
故读中国史,政治统一之治安时代,固当注意,而政治分裂或变乱时代,亦值同样注意,或当更加注意。
如魏晋南北朝,如五代,如辽、金、元及清代,中国可谓已失其常,而中国人则仍为一中国人,依然未变未失,血统道统犹然。中国人之心血,能历五千年而长存。
论及最近七十年之中国历史,则又政治变乱分裂而社会则日益扩展,其在海外者,有台湾人,香港人,新加坡人,其他散入亚洲各地乃及美、欧、非、澳各洲,至少亦得五千万人。
论其血,则同属中国人血统。
论其心,则亦全不忘其同为一中国人。
然而流亡离散,则亦无可讳言。
如求其能团结一致,则非认识做一中国人之共同标准不可,主要在从道统上求,当从历史求之。
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
post blog via @evernote
send via @evernote |
post blog via @evernote |
Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Fwd: Google 高级搜索
send via @evernote |
Google 高级搜索 |
Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
关于自动blog
send via @evernote |
关于自动blog |
Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Fwd: 鄙人建议对文革史有研究兴趣者,应当阅读一下这篇视野特开阔的访谈《金大陆:关于“文革”研究的新思路》,今天国人对文革的认知,很大程度上是建立在邓小平的文
金大陆 : 关于"文革"研究的新思路_共识网
21ccom.netThis page doesn't appear to be an article and therefore may not display well in the Article View. You may want to switch to the Full Web Page view.
If you know there should be an article here, help improve the article parser by reporting this page. Thanks!
Original Page: http://www.21ccom.net/articles/sxwh/fzqy/2014/0318/102586.html
Shared from Pocket
Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote. |
Fwd: Robot wars: after drones, a line we must not cross | Christof Heyns
Drones are becoming dated technology: we may now be able to hand over some of the life-and-death decisions of war to robots.
From the perspective of those engaged in modern warfare, lethal autonomous robots (LARs) offer distinct advantages. They have the potential to process information and to act much faster than humans in situations where nanoseconds could make the difference. They also do not act out of fear, revenge or innate cruelty, as humans sometimes do.
A drone still involves a human "in the loop" – someone, somewhere presses the button. This is slowed down by satellite communications (think of the time-lag when foreign correspondents speak on TV) and these communications can be interrupted by the enemy. So why not take the human "out of the loop", and install an on-board computer that, independently, is able to identify and to trigger deadly force against targets without human intervention?
There are good reasons to be cautious about permitting this.
On a practical level, it is hardly clear that robotic systems can meet the minimum requirements set by the law of war for lethal decision-making. Popular culture, including sci-fi, celebrates the capabilities of robots, but robots are good at what they do only within a narrow range: their sensors give them tunnel-vision information and they are largely wired for quantitative work.
Soldiers in battle may lawfully target only combatants, and not civilians. Will a computer be able to make the value judgment that a group of people in plain clothing carrying rifles are not enemy combatants but hunters – or soldiers surrendering?
Civilian loss of life as "collateral damage" can be lawful only if it is proportionate to the military objective. This is essentially a qualitative judgement, requiring in many cases experience and common sense and an understanding of the larger picture t