If there is anything I learnt for my life from my research, it'll be the realization that there is no end to knowledge. And the reason behind it is not that you can't find the boundary of it -- well, no, you can not, but that is not the point. The point is, we are exploring the knowledge in a linear(1-dimensional) manner. Yet the web of knowledge is a fractal(of dimension larger than 1).
Looking back to the history of science. You'll find that the whole of it is a process of constant branching and intervening. The phylosophy of the ancient Greece gave birth to Physics and Mathematics, and they keep branching up into Mechanics, Electromagnetics, Optics, Algebra, Geology, Set Theory, etc. The ancient Mythology, I am definitely not a expert there, also gave birth to witchcraft, alchemy and stargazing, which then subsequently gave birth to biology, pharmacy, chemistry, astronomy and calender making. Then marriages take places. Geology marries Set Theory and gave birth to topology; Algebra marries Mechanics and gave birth to Analytical Mechanics; Mechanics marries Astronomy and gave birth to Astronophysics; Optics marries Biology and gave birth to microbiology. So on and so forth. Even to this day, science still keep branching and intervining each other to give birth to new sciences. Like the statistical physics, born in early 20th centry, has already gave birth to nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics and Information theory. And it's children, interacting with nonlinear dynamics and biology and even social sciences, forming a field of research what we call today as complex systems.
I have never done it rigorously. But I believe that such a process can be described by an iteration of branching and intervening, which, as a matter of fact, is a basic algorithm of generating fractals. And as this fractal is generated from lines in a abstract plane, although it is hard to determine it's exact dimension, it is safe to say that it must have a dimension larger than 1. And it have infinite value if we use 1-dimension measure. And that is why we can never find the clear boundary to it, nor could we find the end of it.
No. I'm not talking science or mathematics here. What I'm really trying to say actually have nothing to do with science:
If science is a fractal and there is no clear boundary to it, why should we believe life to be otherwise and there should be a protocol to it? Why are everyone searching so hard on finding a guidelines or doctrines to it? Shouldn't life be even wider and harder to define? After all, science is nothing but a mere subset of a universe we call it life.
Usually, if there is anyone who ask me about the opinion about Confucian. I would say I'm disgusted by it. And I shall waste not a single second of my precious life to read about it. Of course some fragmented hypocritical doctrines I heard from other people is part of the reason I don't like it. But that is far from the whole story. The base line is that what Confucian actually did was putting a guide line to how a man should behave, how a woman should behave, how kings and emperor should behave, how civilian and slaves should behave. And the reason I hate it is simple. I don't want any so called "guide line" to strangle a life that should have much more to see, much wider space to stretch to, and much more facinating processes to enjoy.
We are living a life. A life that is much wider than science, much broader than science. And we are living it in a linear manner, just like researchers do in their scientifical pursuit. And if this fact means anything, it'll be that just like researchers can't find the boundaries or end to science, we also can never find a boundary or any so call "ultimacy" in our life. No one knows how a life should be like. And according to the butterfly effect from nonlinear dynamics, no one's life track can be covered again by another individual. And what does so called "guide line" do to us? It limited our life track to a certain converged trajectory, forbidding us to explore to unknown regions of life. And it keeps correcting us if we side tracked.
Is the trajectory that guided us the best trajectory for each of our individuals? We don't know. Then why should we even follow it? Because it is set 2000 years ago? So you trust the judge of a cave man(I know they are not) more than yourself? Or is it because you saw everybody following it? Or is it because you saw some people seemingly at the end of the track glowing with a blinding halo of "success"? You think whatever works for them works for you? You think that is the only good result that can come out of a life? Come on, we are talking about life here. Something that is so ill understood, that you have pretty much no knowledge about. How can you possibly know what is good, what is not?
It is true though. There is a practical reason for those "guidelines" to exist. Unlike scientifical pursuit, where we have higher tolerance of difficulties, life is usually less forgiving. In the journey of life, you can never go back to some point, and start over differently again. And if you find yourself trapped in a deadly trap, you will die. And as no one lives to return and tell us the story about the other side of death, we really don't want to experience that too early. We want to survive. Thus no matter how confining and strangling as it is, the doctrines do provide a guideline that ensures the survival of a significant amount of individuals. So although it doesn't necessarily mean you are one of those whose survival can be ensured by it, it's always safer for you to do the same way.
But life is, after all, much more than survival. And when survival is not an issue, when with some certainty we know that there will still be room for correction even if things go wrong, should we really still stick with the guidelines and doctrines? Should we still forcing ourselves to do something maybe everyone else around you are doing but you really don't like? Or should we... be a little bit more... individualized?
Part of the reason I don't like being with other Chinese is that they are too unified. I mean unified. They stick together, they behave the same according to certain "guidelines". And they correct each other if there is anything standing out from the unified behaviorial pattern, whether or not this unorthodox behavior is better for that individual or not. I don't know how they tolerated the whole assimilating process. But for me, it's suffocating. I would rather lead my life to be something to my own liking, enjoy what I enjoy and try things that I have few clues about. I'd like to enjoy a life of my own, having all the joyful and sorrowful surprices that no one has told me before.
And have my own venture I call it life.
