西媒导读 2015年合订本

The Mentality Carrier 西媒导读 ACCELERATING OPENESS

Sydney, Australia

2015 年度合订本

西媒导读 – 2015 正式版

关于我们

《西媒导读》∙ The Mentality Carrier 2015 – 基本介绍 Accelerating Openness 1. 价值定位 Visions and Values: 《西媒导读》作为一家独立的出版机构，倡导、推广英语作为有价值信息 的载体和有意义交流的工具，逐步减轻“纯工具性”英语学习对国内学生 与海外留学生所带来的不良影响。 我们的其他目的有：传承知识，为读者提供高质量的背景信息；在网络信 息泛滥的时代，为同学们提供小清新读物；提供有价值的西方观点，起启 迪作用；为准备雅思考试的同学提供阅读材料和写作观点。 本年度《西媒导读》的主题是：

Step 2: Second-hand experience – Reading 文本作为二手经历，当我们读到有共鸣的信息时，便可以把它们选择出来。 Step 3: Sharing the experience - Communicating 与他人分享与交流 Step 4: Back to Step 1.

Summary； 1. 确定话题（每种话题介绍一种新事物，或尝试解决一种矛盾） 2. 搜集资料与选材 3. 英文编辑初稿 4. 添加中文导语、翻译 5. 图片与版式设计 6. 市场推广 7. 读者反馈

Accelerating Openness （促进信息传达的流畅和人与人之间的开放）

2. 刊物名称 Designation for Name: 中文名《西媒导读》：我们所选取的西方媒体文章与报道涉及时事、科技 和艺术三个领域，致力于展现西方的最新社会风貌。为降低阅读门槛，我 们为文章添加导语，突出其思想价值特色——从而提高同学们阅读兴趣、 开启一扇窗户，对西方社会文化的认知和了解起到催化剂作用。 英文名 The Mentality Carrier： Mentality 是心智、思想和精神力的总称； Carrier 意为载体、搬运工。此英文名与刊物的价值定位相符，也体现了 《西媒导读》爱智的特点。

3. 制作周期 Production Cycle: Step 1: First-hand experience – Doing things by yourself or with people 一手经历作为信息源头，包括学习、工作以及做实事——可以尝试任何一 种美好或痛苦的经历。

4. 相关网站 Recommended Websites: 《西媒导读》经常关注、涉猎的传媒、科学及设计类网站包括： The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/au Objectivism101: www.objectivism101.com/Lectures/ Boundless Text Book Innovation: www.boundless.com Physics for the 21st Century: www.learner.org/courses/physics/ How Design: www.howdesign.com

5. 联系我们 Contact Us: 了解更多详情，请登陆官方主页：http://issuu.com/mentality.carrier Facebook 主页：www.facebook.com/mentality.carrier 订阅请将姓名或昵称发送至：mentality.carrier@outlook.com

西媒导读 ∙ The Mentality Carrier 2015

关于我们

Contents 第 23 期

思维方式的两种类型

Independence VS. Second-Handedness

 1

Reason VS. Faith

 4

第 24 期

“理性与信仰：矛盾的两级

第 25 期

西门子：答长远，行更远

Press Release: Siemens – Vision 2020

 7

第 26 期

信息层面上的贫富差距

Relationship Between Information Rich and Information Poor

 11

第 27 期

西方社会阶层的分化

The 3-Ladder System of Social Class in the United States

 13

第 28 期

面对生活的两种心态

The Static and Dynamic View of Life

 21

第 29 期

用计划迎接未来

Planning Towards Future

 30

第 30 期

我们所需要的工作文化

Code of Conduct – Essential Energy

 39

西媒导读 第 23 期 – 思维方式的两种类型

Feb.1, 2015

导读：在当今信息社会，随着生活节奏的加快和人际圈的扩展，我们分析处理 信息和意见的方式，关乎我们决策的优劣。本文用流畅的语言和缜密的逻辑， 论述和总结了大多数人思维方式的两种类型，供我们参照和选取。

thinker; the second is a conformist and what Ayn Rand called a secondhander, because he places the views of others above and before his own perception of reality and the judgment of his own mind.

Independence VS. Second-Handedness

Now, a third person might reject the existence of God and the morality of sacrifice on the grounds that they are “traditional” notions accepted by other people and because he wants to be “different” or avant-garde. But, then, he too is a second-hander: Like the conformist, he is putting the views of others in first place; however, in his case, rather than accepting ideas because others do, he rejects ideas on that basis.

Craig Biddle, Nov.3, 2010

The conformist and the “non-conformist” are NOT fundamentally different, but fundamentally similar. Both look to others rather than at reality in order to determine what their beliefs and values should be. Neither is an independent thinker; each is a second-hander; each maintains a primary orientation toward other people, not toward reality.

An independent thinker’s primary orientation is toward reality, not toward other people. He is guided by the use of his own mind, not by the views of others. He puts his own observations and judgments in first place; he faces reality directly and deals with it first-hand.

Independence “is one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind.” Here we focus on the issue of forming one’s own judgments.

To begin, consider a person who grows up in a devoutly [1] religious family, but then, as an adult, rejects religion on the grounds that there is neither evidence for God nor rational justification for human sacrifice. Compare him to a person from the same family who never questions the religious dogma [2], and thus continues to “just believe” and act selflessly for the rest of his life on the grounds that: “That’s just how I was raised” or “What would people think of a selfish atheist?” The first person is relying on his own mind and his own judgment; the second is expecting others to think and judge for him. The first person is putting his own mind in first place; the second is putting the views of others in first place. The first person is an independent

An independent thinker demands rational evidence for every idea he accepts.

He does not accept (or reject) ideas on the grounds that others believe them to be true (as do religionists, social subjectivists, and second-handers). Nor does he accept ideas just because he wants them to be true (as do personal subjectivists). Rather, he accepts ideas only if he understands them to be true—by means of his own reality-oriented, logical thinking.

If he can integrate an idea, without contradiction, into the network of his observation-based knowledge, he accepts it; if he cannot, he does not. If he is aware of some evidence in support of a relevant idea, and of no contradictions to disqualify it, he considers the idea further but suspends his judgment until he gains sufficient evidence to draw a rational conclusion. If he later discovers that the idea entails [3] a contradiction, he then rejects it as false. And if an idea is put forth arbitrarily, that is, with no supporting evidence whatsoever - such as: “Maybe there is a God” or “Perhaps some people are psychic” or “There might be flying monkeys on Mars” - he simply 1|P age

西媒导读 第 23 期 – 思维方式的两种类型

dismisses it as unworthy of his consideration, noting that to assert “maybe” is not to present evidence.

In sum, an independent thinker considers ideas only insofar [4] as they are relevant to his life, are supported by some degree of evidence, and do not contradict anything he rationally knows to be true. His own logical assessment of the facts is his guide in all matters.

This is not to say that an independent thinker slights the value of experts. On the contrary, he consults them when and as needed—but always on the basis of their merit, intelligence, knowledge, ability, and character as judged by his own mind.

For instance, if he wants to buy a computer, he might call on an expert in the field, but not for the purpose of relinquishing [5] his judgment on the matter.

If the expert recommends a certain computer on the basis of sound reasoning, including demonstrable features and evident qualities, the independent thinker takes this advice into account. But if the alleged expert recommends a computer solely on the grounds that “Everyone who knows anything about computers is buying this one. I’m telling you—I’m an authority on computers—you don’t need to look any further. This is what you want…,” the independent thinker does not reach for his wallet.

Similarly, if he becomes ill, he might visit a doctor, but not for the purpose of blindly accepting the doctor’s diagnosis or recommended treatment. Rather, he visits the doctor in order to gain knowledge so that he can make an educated decision. If the doctor’s diagnosis makes sense and the suggested treatment is reasonable, the independent thinker will take them into consideration. But if the so-called doctor says, “Dude, because of a conflict in a previous life your karma is out of whack, and to realign it we’ll have to perform a séance…,” the independent thinker does not start lighting candles.

Likewise, if he hears a scientist explaining a new way in which nature can be used to lengthen or enhance human life, an independent thinker might become fascinated and begin asking questions about the discovery. But if he hears an alleged scientist preaching about the “intrinsic value” of nature, or the moral imperative [6] of “protecting” the environment, or the looming dangers of “depleting” natural resources, an independent thinker asks himself the correspondingly appropriate questions: How can nature have “value”

Feb.1, 2015

apart from a valuer and a purpose? Morally speaking, how can anything matter apart from its usefulness in sustaining and furthering human life?

What does “protect” the environment mean? Protect it from what? From man? If nature is to be protected from man, how is man supposed to live?

And how can natural resources be “depleted” when the world is nothing but natural resources? After all what is the earth but a gigantic ball of them? And what are the other planets but a whole lot more of the same? Given a) the size of the earth, b) the immensity of the universe, and c) the fact that matter is indestructible (it can change forms but cannot go out of existence), how can we ever “run out” of resources—so long as we are free to reshape nature according to our needs? How can we ever have too little of anything—except the freedom to act on our judgment, as human life requires?

An independent thinker wants reasons—not appeals to “authority” or “other dimensions” or “intrinsic value”. He never passively, blindly, or uncritically accepts the claims of other people. He may learn from them—if they are rational and have something to teach him. He may take their suggestions into account—if they are relevant and make sense. And he may listen to their arguments—so long as they present evidence for their claims, proceed logically, and hold human life as the standard of moral value. But he always makes the final judgment on the basis of the available evidence and by means of his own use of logic. In other words, he recognizes and accepts the fact that his own reasoning mind is his only means of gaining knowledge, judging values, or assessing claims.

2|P age

西媒导读 第 23 期 – 思维方式的两种类型

There are essentially two kinds of people in the world: independent thinkers and second-handers. The first faces reality and thinks for himself or herself; the second faces other people and expects them to think for him.

An independent thinker does not place anyone or anything above or before the judgment of his own mind, because he does not regard anything as more important than the facts of reality. Since he wants to live as a human being, to pursue his values, and to enjoy his life, he deals with reality directly, by means of his own observations and logic. When faced with a question, he looks at the facts and uses his own rational judgment to discover the truth of the matter. Since he chooses to think for himself and to form his own judgments, he is a purveyor [7] of spiritual values—values such as rational ideas, self-esteem, friendship, and love. And since he chooses to support himself, to live by the work of his own mind, he is a producer of material values—values such as software, sculpture, skyscrapers, and medicine. In short, an independent thinker respects his psychological needs as well as his physical needs, and he does so regardless of the approval or disapproval of others. In a word, he is thoroughly selfish.

Not so, the second-hander. He regards the views of other people as superior to his own and as more important than the facts of reality. He does not deal with reality directly, but indirectly, through other people. When faced with a question, he does not turn to the facts and use his own rational judgment to discover the truth of the matter; instead, he turns to other people to see what they say about it. He first wants to know what others believe, so he can then decide what he will believe. He first wants to know what others value, so he can then decide what he will value. He first wants to know what others think, so he can then react—either in compliance or in defiance [8], depending on whether he is a conformist or a “non-conformist.”

If others say that there are no absolutes, or that God exists, or that selfsacrifice is the moral ideal, or that nature must be protected, or that some smear on a canvas is a profound work of art—the second-hander does one of two things: If he is a conformist, he thoughtlessly nods his head in agreement; if he is a “non-conformist,” he thoughtlessly shakes it in disagreement. Either way, he has relinquished his mind. He is not an active thinker, but a passive reactor. He is not a person on a mission, but a puppet (木偶) on a string—a

Feb.1, 2015

string held by any person or group from whom he seeks to gain or avoid approval. 本文原载于：https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2010/11/independence-vssecond-handedness/

[1] devout (adj): In a manner that shows deep religious feeling or commitment 虔诚的 [2] dogma (noun): A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true 教义，教条 [3] entail (verb): To have as a necessary consequence [4] insofar (adv): To the extent that [5] relinquish (verb): To surrender or renounce (a claim, right, etc) 放弃；让 出(权利)，撤销 (声明)

[6] imperative (adj): Extremely urgent or important; essential 必要的 (noun): Something that is urgent or essential [7] purveyor (noun): A person or thing that habitually provides or supplies a particular thing or quality 承办商 [8] defiance (noun): Open or bold resistance to or disregard for authority, opposition, or power 反抗 推荐栏目：

The Ayn Rand Institute: https://www.aynrand.org/ The Objective Standard: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/ 3|P age

西媒导读 第 24 期 – 理性与信仰：矛盾的两极

Feb.5, 2015

导读：理性和信仰在我们生活中充当怎样的角色？这两者对我们的生活又有怎 样的指导意义？本文从客观主义的角度出发，分别对理性和信仰的特点进行了 多方位阐释。

Reason VS. Faith Joseph Rowlands

A few years ago, the Heaven's Gate cult (邪教) decided that a group of aliens were hiding behind a comet (彗星), coming to free them from the turmoils [1] of life on earth. All they needed to do to hitch a ride (搭车) was to prove that they were sincere in their belief. Ritual suicide was the method. This is a wonderful example of faith. The first question, when someone suggests that you kill yourself to go to heaven, should be "what evidence do you have for such a theory"? Faith was required. Sure, the leader probably had told them about hearing voices in his head or whatever else, but these are not really reasons. He couldn't provide any evidence. They only had his word, and that had to be weighed against all kinds of other possible explanations.

And that's the important part. Reason allows us to analyse the data and form the best possible conclusion from it. When someone takes any random piece of data and latches on to it, ignoring everything else, that also counts as faith.

They're not forming their conclusions based on the evidence available.

They're basing it on what they want to believe. 当一个人随意抓取了一部分信 息并停留在上面，坚持其正确性而忽略其他可获取的信息，这是信仰的一种情 况。

Obviously religions are a good example of faith, since many actually preach the virtue of faith. If you say you can't understand why God would let innocent people die, or children get abused, or anything else, they say you are not supposed to understand. You are supposed to just believe. Just take it on faith. Believe without reason, without evidence, and without understanding.

Sometimes the best way to understand a concept is to contrast it with others.

There are some aspects of reason that fit this description. Specifically, it's useful to contrast it with the concept of faith.

Objectivists have a very clear and specific concept of faith. Faith is accepting an idea as true without reason, or against reason. The first half of faith is accepting an idea in spite of the fact that there is no justified reason to believe it. Obviously someone can try to rationalize anything, so we are not talking about just giving an excuse for a belief. We are talking about actual evidence that leads to that particular belief. Let's take some examples.

The other half of faith is believing in something despite contrary evidence for it. One old common belief was that central planning was an effective method of producing wealth. As the evidence piled up against it, people continued to believe. They want to believe, and they just refused to acknowledge the evidence. Country after country collapsed into famine and horrible poverty, and the belief went on. The Soviet Union had to collapse before people started having doubts, and there are plenty of hard-core believers still around.

This is faith. 当一个人的做事方式通过实践证明有误，而他一度坚持这样做， 这也是信仰的一种情况。

Contrast this with reason. Reason requires evidence to form a conclusion. It doesn't ignore or evade [2] known facts. It is a process by which you try to formulate a conclusion based on all of the facts. It absolutely never accepts anything without reason for it.

4|P age

西媒导读 第 24 期 – 理性与信仰：矛盾的两极

Now this understanding of reason and faith are polar opposites. How about a middle ground between the two? What if you have some supporting evidence for a theory, but there are enough unknowns to make you seriously doubt if the conclusion is correct? The first point to make here is that this is acknowledging that you don't have enough evidence is a product of reason.

Forming conclusions is not just weighing the known factors. We all learn in life that you can also evaluate the quality of the information, and how complete it is. In other words, there are reasons to not believe the evidence, and those reasons are based on your understanding of how thorough the information needs to be.

Feb.5, 2015

acting on faith, not reason. Your belief wouldn't be justified by reason. If you accept it tentatively, you are not accepting it on faith, but reason.

Reason and faith are completely incompatible. Faith is the destroyer of reason. It takes particular ideas and divorces them from reality and from reason. If you accept something on faith, you are essentially saying that you will take it off of the table with regards to reason, and treat it how you feel like treating it. Wherever faith goes, reason is pushed out.

Let's take an example. You find out a woman was murdered in New York City last night. You find out someone you've never liked was also in NYC last night. Conclusion: he killed her! Well, you probably don't believe that's enough information to make that judgment. The first reason is that millions of other people could fit that description, so the evidence is equally supportive of concluding someone else did it. You also have no evidence of motive, which would explain why the murder happened. You may need better information on whether the person had the opportunity as well.

The point is that although you may have some weak data to suggest a conclusion, you know that there are a lot more factors that need to be understood before you can really be sure of it. So these reasons against the conclusion are based on your knowledge of what it requires to make a valid conclusion in this context. A more straightforward reason to reject it would be if the guy had an alibi (不在场证明). But there are all kinds of indirect reasons. What if he was known to be a moral person who you trusted? It may not directly contradict the conclusion, but you'd want a stronger case.

Now again, what if the evidence is weak? Well, if the conclusion is the best you can come up with, but still lacks sufficient backing, it would be wrong to accept the conclusion wholeheartedly. In other words, reason would say that you can tentatively [3] accept the conclusion, for lack of a better one, but you should treat this "knowledge" as tentative. If you accept it as strongly as you accept any other piece of knowledge, it would be unjustified.

So even in this case, faith and reason are never combined. If you accept the weak conclusion as if it were absolutely true beyond any doubt, you would be

If you accept an idea on faith, it can conflict with the ideas you've accepted with reason. To make sense of it all, and to integrate the different ideas, you have to reconcile [4] those beliefs. That means either throwing out the ideas based on faith and sticking to reason, or more likely throwing out reason and sticking with the faith.

Imagine you are analysing an idea with reason and it conflicts with your faith.

If you ignore the contradiction and accept it anyway, you'll be undermining [5] your reasoning process. Reason requires a logical exploration of the data, weeding out any contradictions it finds. If you allow the contradiction anyway, you'll have to suspend your reasoning ability. And that means you'll be accepting the new idea, not on reason as it very well might be justified by, but on faith. Faith grows, and reason gives ground.

If, on the other hand, you don't ignore the contradiction, but accept it as valid, you'll use your reasoning method on incorrect facts. Simple case is 5|P age

西媒导读 第 24 期 – 理性与信仰：矛盾的两极

Creationism (创造宇宙说). If you accept that the universe was created a few thousand years ago, as the bible says, then you have to start interpreting actual facts in this light. When you see the dinosaur bones, you'll have to imagine that god put them in the earth to ‘trick’ everyone.

So, if faith and reason conflict, one must give way to the other. One must grow at the expense of the other. They are in mortal (不共戴天的) combat for your soul.

Now what if they don't exactly conflict? What if you believe random things like the centre of Jupiter (木星) is made of chocolate pudding? Does that cause reason to retreat [6]? Well, if ever the two came into conflict, they would. It does have two direct side effects.

First, anything taken on faith is treated by your mind as a buffer zone against reason. If you were to analyse it with reason, the ideas would die a quick death. So to maintain them, you have to avoid using reason with them. This creates a sort of minefield in your head, where you have to twist and turn your reasoning skills to avoid all of the sensitive spots. That doesn't work well in regards to efficiency.

Feb.5, 2015

Background information: Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information [1].

Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, based on no scientific, plausible, testable, demonstrable evidence. Faith is used to refer to a belief that is not based on proof or evidence [2]. The word faith is sometimes used as a synonym for hope, for trust, or for belief.

[1] "So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean", International Journal of Philosophical Studies 8: 3, 271 — 295.

[2] Dictionary.com unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith 推荐栏目： Film – The Theory of Everything

Second, every idea taken on faith cannot be integrated with the rest of your knowledge. To simply maintain all of the random ideas you can fill your head with, you'd have to devote a lot of mental energy. And then you have the problem that those ideas may conflict with one another. As a result, you’ve got to compare every new idea with the thousand arbitrary ideas you've accepted on faith. 本文原载于：http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture15.shtml

[1] turmoil (noun): violent or confused movement; agitation [2] evade (verb): to get away from or avoid (a question) 逃避，规避 [3] tentative (adj): hesitant, uncertain, or cautious 试探性的 [4] reconcile (verb): to make (two apparently conflicting things) compatible or consistent with each other 和解 [5] undermine (verb): to wear away the bottom or base of 侵蚀…的基础 [6] retreat (verb): to withdraw or retire 撤退

The extraordinary story of Jane and Steven Hawking Official website: http://www.thetheoryofeverythingmovie.com.au/ From The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/film/the-theory-of-everything

6|P age

西媒导读 第 25 期 – 西门子：答长远，行更远

Mar.20, 2015

导读：未来，是可以变得有定数的—— 通过基于现实的估测和细致的规划，未 来也能够变得明晰可控，引人入胜。在每一个城市万家灯火和兴盛繁荣的背后， 西门子的团队无时无刻不在默默发力，完成大量的基础性工作，把有客户需求 和有意义构想转变为现实。 Vision 2020，是西门子对不远将来的愿景，也是 我们对未来美好生活的共同愿景。

Press Release: Siemens – Vision 2020 Munich, May 7, 2014

In the future, Siemens AG will position itself along the electrification, automation and digitalization. Along these value chains Siemens has identified several growth fields in which it sees its greatest long-term potential. The company is orienting its resource allocation toward these growth fields and has announced concrete measures in this direction. The measures include the purchase of the major part of Rolls-Royce’s energy business and the contribution of Siemens’ Metals Technologies into a joint venture. A public listing of the audiology business will also be prepared. In addition, Siemens is making its organization flatter and more customeroriented. This is Siemens – Vision 2020.

“Our Vision 2020 addresses our company’s long-term perspectives along the modern electrification and automation value chains. By expanding sharebased employee participation in our company’s success, we’re creating a sustainable ownership culture at Siemens,” said Siemens President and CEO Joe Kaeser.

The company wants to expand its share plans for employees below the senior management level and increase the number of employee shareholders by at least 50 percent to well over 200,000. For this purpose, Siemens will make up to €400 million available annually depending on company performance. In addition, the launch of the previously announced share buyback program of up to €4 billion is upcoming.

The future focus on electrification, automation and digitalization is the result of the in-depth and extensive analysis begun in August 2013. Siemens has identified the fields where it will be able to achieve long-term growth and high profitability with its products and its unique technological knowhow [1].

• Focus on growth fields along the electrification, automation and digitalization • Acquisition of Rolls-Royce gas turbine and compressor business, joint venture for Metals Technologies and public listing of audiology set the course • New organization with flatter structures – Sector level eliminated • Greater employee participation in company success – Siemens to make up to €400 million available annually depending on company performance • Launch of share buyback of up to €4 billion upcoming

In electrification and automation, Siemens already holds a clear No. 1 position in many markets. The growth fields in these two areas include the markets for small gas turbines and offshore wind turbines, which are profiting from a growing demand for secure and sustainable power supplies. The process industry, for example, offers attractive opportunities that Siemens can leverage even more intensively with its automation and drives solutions. The market for the production of unconventional oil and gas also offers attractive growth potential for Siemens.

7|P age

西媒导读 第 25 期 – 西门子：答长远，行更远

Mar.20, 2015

Siemens intends to fully exploit the potential of increasing digitalization not just in manufacturing. Utilizing software and simulations, the Digital Factory makes product development considerably faster and more efficient. Datadriven services, software and IT solutions are of decisive importance as they have a substantial influence on all of Siemens’ future growth fields.

In order to take full advantage of the market potential in these fields, Siemens is realigning its organizational structures. As of October 1, 2014, the organization will be streamlined [2] by eliminating the Sector level and bundling business into 9 Divisions instead of the current 16. In addition, Healthcare will be separately managed in the future. This means that regional organization structures can be tailored to the requirements of the healthcare market and do not have to conform to the company’s organizational matrix.

This will give Healthcare greater flexibility on the medical technologies market, which is characterized by fundamental changes and paradigm [3] shifts. As part of its realignment, Siemens is also preparing the going public of its audiology business.

Bundling the Divisions and eliminating the Sectors will reduce bureaucracy, cut costs and accelerate decision-making within the company. In addition, the company’s support functions – for example, human resources and communications – are to be streamlined and centrally managed in the future.

These measures, which are expected to increase productivity by some €1 billion a year, are to be fully effective by the end of fiscal 2016. To optimize cost development sustainably, the company has set a new target for total cost productivity. Starting in fiscal 2015, it is to total 3% to 5% a year.

Power and Gas Wind Power and Renewables Energy Management Building Technologies Mobility Digital Factory Process Industries and Drives Healthcare Financial Services

11 ~ 15% 5 ~ 8% 7 ~ 10% 8 ~ 11% 6 ~ 9% 14 ~ 20% 8 ~ 12% 15 ~ 19% 15 ~ 20% (Return on equity)

Vision 2020 - Overview Change is a fundamental feature of today’s world. It creates future opportunities, provides momentum for entrepreneurial decisions, calls into question established points of view and inspires new maxims [4] for action.

A look at today’s digital transformation – a prominent megatrend of our time – indicates how profoundly our world has changed in the last few years and highlights the paradigm shift that the future holds in store. By the year 2000, some two billion gigabytes of data had been accumulated worldwide; today, the same volume of information is generated in a single day. And driven by the ongoing merger of the real and virtual worlds, this trend is increasing.

Siemens was one of the first companies to identify the opportunities provided by the megatrends digital transformation, globalization, urbanization, demographic change and climate change and to rigorously align its business activities accordingly.

Why? Because we know that we can’t succeed over the long term unless we view change as an opportunity and work together to manage it.

If you want to exploit change, you’ve got to provide answers to three questions: What do you stand for? What sets you apart? How will you achieve long-term success? And that’s what we’ve done. Vision 2020 is paving the way to a successful future. And to make it happen, we’re focusing on three topics: 1. A clear mission 清晰而明确的使命 A mission expresses a company’s self-understanding and defines its aspirations. “We make real what matters.” That’s our aspiration. That’s what we stand for. That’s what sets us apart. A reflection of our strong brand, it’s the mission that inspires us to succeed.

2. A lived ownership culture 每位员工都是公司的主人 One engine of sustainable business is our ownership culture, in which every employee takes personal responsibility for our company’s success. “Always act as if it were your own company” – this maxim applies to everyone at Siemens, from Managing Board member to trainee.

本文原载于： http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/index.php 8|P age

西媒导读 第 25 期 – 西门子：答长远，行更远

3. A consistent strategy 一脉相承的发展战略 With our positioning along the electrification value chain, we have knowhow that extends from power generation to power transmission, power distribution and smart grid to the efficient application of electrical energy. And with our outstanding strengths in automation, we’re well equipped for the future and the age of digitalization. Vision 2020 defines an entrepreneurial concept that will enable our company to consistently occupy attractive growth fields, sustainably strengthen our core business and outpace our competitors in efficiency and performance. It’s our path to long-term success. And we’re measuring our progress: seven overarching [5] goals support this aim.

Mission 西门子的使命

Mar.20, 2015

Our knowledge is the basis of our performance. We partner with our customers, leveraging sustainable business practices. With determination and ingenuity, we deliver engineering excellence, taking personal ownership until we jointly succeed.

Positioning 当前定位 How can we achieve long-term success? And how are we positioning ourselves to make it happen? Our setup is aligned with framework conditions worldwide, with the long-term trends that define our markets, with our competitive environment and with the requirements of customers, partners and societies. Focused on the long term, it stands for what all our business activities have in common.

Shaped by our history, culture and values, our mission defines how we understand ourselves. As an expression of a strong brand, it formulates our aspiration. This is the foundation on which we’ve been tackling the challenges of our time ever since Werner von Siemens and Johann Georg Halske founded our company in Berlin more than 165 years ago.

Electrification 电气化 We’re positioned along the value chain of electrification. Our products are designed to generate, transmit, distribute and utilize electrical energy with particularly high efficiency. Our roots are in electrification. We’ve been leaders in this field until now, and it’s here that our future lies.

We make real what matters 我们把客户需求和有意义构想转化为现实 Grounded in reality, we’re inspired by the desire to shape the future – in cooperation with our partners. Leveraging our passion for engineering, we make real what matters, working with our customers to help improve the lives of people today and in the generations to come. Customers all around the world trust us and count on our knowhow and our reliability to make them more competitive.

Automation 自动化 We’ve been successfully automating customer processes for years. In automation, too, we’ve already captured leading market positions worldwide.

We intend to maintain and expand these positions.

By setting the benchmark 引领行业新标杆 We empower our customers to set benchmarks – with our power of innovation, our leading technologies, our global presence and, last but not least, our financial solidity. We generate value by transforming the value chain of electrification, reaching across both the digital and physical worlds.

Our highly qualified and committed employees are the foundation for achieving this.

Together we deliver 通过合作创造价值

Digitalization 数字化 We want to exploit the opportunities offered by digitalization even better.

Because added value for our customers lies more and more in software solutions and intelligent data analysis. Across the areas of electrification, automation and digitalization, there are concrete growth fields – fields in which we see major potential. We’re rigorously aligning ourselves to exploit this potential in order to achieve long-term success.

Stages 发展阶段规划 Our positioning and our strategic direction are closely linked to defined milestones – the stages in which we’ll lead our company into a successful future. We’re not only focusing on the next one or two quarters or the next 9|P age

西媒导读 第 25 期 – 西门子：答长远，行更远

Mar.20, 2015

reporting season but on the years and, perhaps, even decades to come. With this future in view, we now have to take all the right steps to create value – for the short, medium and long term.

We’re sharpening our customer and business focus through rigorous positioning and clear priorities for stringent resource allocation. For this reason, we’re concentrating our efforts on selected growth fields.

Short term: Drive performance 短期：提升业绩与效益 Our first task is to boost our performance. To achieve this aim, we’re retailoring our structures and responsibilities. We’re also focusing on business excellence, in other words, the reliable management of our businesses. We want to get even those businesses that aren’t reaching their full potential back on a successful track and make them competitive again.

Governance 行政效率的提高 We’re also strengthening our internal setup by streamlining our company structure and making our management even more effective – in a word, we’re ensuring strong governance.

Medium term: Strengthen core 中期：专注于核心业务 To achieve long-term success, you have to focus on the things that make you strong and put other things aside. In line with this philosophy, we intend to strengthen our successful businesses along the value chain of electrification.

Among other things, we want to allocate resources in a more rigorous way in order to expand in strategic growth fields.

Long term: Scale up 长期：发掘新机遇，拓展新领域 But we won’t stop there. With the same resolve, we’ll intensify our efforts to seize further growth opportunities and tap new fields.

Strategic framework 战略框架 To be successful, a company needs more than concrete financial targets.

It also requires a comprehensive strategic framework that closely aligns the central fields of company management. Vision 2020 defines this framework for Siemens.

Management model 适用性广泛的管理模式 Last but not least, we’re further expanding the original One Siemens financial concept to make it a comprehensive management model encompassing our financial targets, our operating system and our underlying approach to sustainability. 了解更多内容，请登录： http://www.siemens.com/about/en/strategic-overview.htm

[1] know-how (noun): Practical knowledge or skill; expertise 诀窍；专有技术 [2] streamline (verb): Make (an organization or system) more efficient and effective by employing faster or simpler working methods 把…做成流线型； 使现代化组织；使简单化

[3] paradigm (noun): A typical example or pattern of something 范例，样式 [4] maxim (noun): A short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct 座右铭；准则 [5] overarching (adj): Comprehensive or all-embracing 包罗万象的

Ownership culture 主人翁文化 The most important guarantee for the long-term success of our strategy is a strong culture. It’s the origin and foundation for all our considerations.

We want to reflect the basic values of responsible action within a strong ownership culture – throughout the entire company.

Customer and business focus 专注于客户与业务

10 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 26 期 – 信息层面上的贫富差距 导读：在人类物质文明的发展进程中，财产等有形价值一度长期作为划分贫富 的标准；然而，在当今物质文明向信息文明的衍变过程中，人所获取的信息量 和阅读的信息层级渐渐成为衡量信息时代贫富的新标准——或者说，人们开始 重视信息中所蕴含的隐形价值——宽广的信息获取渠道，高效的信息获取方 式，高层级的信息检视，都可以说是有形价值的重要源泉。本文对当代出现的 “信息贫富差距”进行了较为全面而开创性的阐述和总结。

Relationship Between Information Rich and Information Poor

Mar.29, 2015

plan their lives and react to changes in circumstances on the basis of what they know or can find out. The information poor don’t have such access and are vulnerable to all kinds of pressures. Though the information rich are mainly in the industrialised countries and the information poor are mostly in the developing world, similar splits are obvious between prosperous and disadvantaged groups inside industrialised countries.

Defining what information society is The Internet is the only mass medium that is newly created and has tremendous potential to achieve greater social equity and empowerment and improve everyday life for those on the margins of society - it is nowadays seen as the pivotal [1] point of view of the “information society”.

Meanwhile, the information society produces a “class division” - a clash between people who haven't access to the majority of knowledge and those who are “information rich”, contributing to the economic wealth. This gap between “haves” and “have-nots”, between “information rich” and “information poor” keeps increasing and has radical effects of changing or at least substantially affecting our society.

Information-rich and information-poor are a new classification of rich and poor. If people are kept ignorant, they’re more likely to do what they’ve been told.

- Tony Benn, in the Daily Telegraph Introduction In recent years researchers have pointed out that there are huge differences in people’s ability to obtain and act on information. This is causing concern, with experts arguing that a fundamental split is developing between the information haves and have-nots throughout the world. The information rich have good access to information — especially online, but also through more traditional media such as newspapers, radio, television, and books — and can

A more critical definition of “information society” given by BusinessDictionary.com is as follows: The information society is a society which information technology (IT) is transforming every aspect of cultural, political and social life and which is based on the production and distribution of information; it is characterized by the pervasive [2] influence of IT on home, work and recreational aspects of the individuals daily routine, stratification into new classes those who are information-rich and those who are information-poor.

“Information rich” and “information poor” is also referred to as the “digital divide” terminology - “the gap between those people who have Internet access and those who do not”. Looking at the multiple and almost identical definitions of “information society” and its inextricable [3] “digital divide” we can conclude that by “digital divide” it is meant the splitting of those who use or not use Internet resources. The “have-nots” cannot access computers and Internet resources and therefore are disadvantaged, falling into an unequal position compared to the “haves”, the one who gains access to 11 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 26 期 – 信息层面上的贫富差距

information throughout new technologies and therefore participate actively to the social, political, cultural and economical life.

Are “Haves” and “Have-nots” always “information-rich” and “information poor”?

Looking at the given definitions it would almost imply that people having a computer and Internet access would automatically be seen as haves, but sometimes in developing countries and certainly in developed countries were consumers widely have access to these technologies we meet situations where they are not considered as information rich. We should look at a different approach and formalise the differentiation within our daily reality.

The “Information poor” are consumers who use traditional mass media information such as television, DVDs, radios and magazines. They possess a wide range of electronic devices, MP3 players, game consoles and other computing machines. They are considered as passive consumers of information and nowadays as passive users of new technologies: downloading digital e-books, listening to their favourite music, playing computer games, reading the last international news. But they do not interact nor create any of this provided Information and are certainly not involved in decision taking.

On the opposite “information rich” stands for a new elite [4] within the information society. They are involved into acquiring and processing information, producing personalised journals on community platforms, elaborating [5] group discussions in forums with a certain level of knowledgeable competence. They are acting at manager levels thanks to their acquired knowledge and overall literacy. They are the protagonists (主角) of this ever-growing information society who possesses the know-how [6] of selective processing, generating and distributing information while allocates their own criteria of values to the chosen information. This selective process of evaluating provided information is determined by the consumers rather than the producers. Consumers pull out the information that fits their needs to increase the value of the already acquired information.

Mar.29, 2015

联系，从而能够完成更为系统性的工作。他们一般受过良好教育，通过实践而 掌握到获取、处理、书写和传播信息的高效方法，成为当今信息社会的主角。 他们往往从事于书写和编辑高品质的专栏、期刊，原创引领潮流的音乐、美术 或影视，从而对事件进行记录、对问题进行具体化阐释、对现象进行抽象总 结，于此同时实现其世界观和方法论的表达。另外，“信息富裕” 群体处理和传 播信息的方式取决于对目标读者群的定位——信息处理者总是在对上层更为抽 象的信息进行更为详尽的阐述与解读，然后给提供给有需求的读者。 本文原载于：http://www.ukessays.com/essays/information-systems/relationshipbetween-information-rich-in-information-poor.php

You are, by dint of [7] reading this newspaper, information rich. You belong to the knowledge class, for the purchase of a paper such as this also implies you are more likely to have access at home or work to the internet with all its wealth of information.

- The Guardian 英国《卫报》 [1] pivotal (adj): Of crucial importance in relation to the development or success 中枢的；关键的 [2] pervasive (adj): (Especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people 遍布地 [3] inextricable (adj): Impossible to disentangle or separate 无法摆脱的 [4] elite (noun): A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society 社会精英 [5] elaborating (verb): Develop or present (a theory or policy) in further detail; add more detail concerning what has already been said 详尽阐述 [6] know-how (noun): Practical knowledge or skill; expertise 诀窍；专有技术 [7] by dint of: because of something; due to the efforts of something 借助, 靠 推荐栏目：http://chrisburkard.com

对于“信息贫穷”群体而言，他们的大部分时间用于被动地获取信息，比如收看 电视节目，收听广播，或长期阅读种类单一的书籍或杂志。而对于“信息富裕” 群体而言，他们更加积极地阅读和处理多方面的信息，善于发现和捕捉其间的 12 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

Apr.4, 2015

导读：当下的我们每一个人，都身处于不同的成长发展阶段——由于身份和工 作岗位的差异，每个人都站在不同的观测点端详这个世界。所谓社会阶层，便 是学者在分析社会结构时所进行的一种主观想象。不同社会阶层的人们生活在 不同的语境基础之上，思维方式、行为方式和评判标准，均存在着显著差别； 中国与西方国家的差异，除了体现在文化习俗上之外，很大程度体现在阶层上。 本文作者根据自身的经验和体会，对社会阶层的特点和阶层之间的矛盾进行了 系统而详尽的阐述，为我们理解社会阶层的分化提供了一种独特视角。

The 3-Ladder System of Social Class in the U.S. Michael Ochurch, Sep. 9, 2012

also why it is a source of conflict. The ladders I will assign the names Labour, Gentry, and Elite. My specific percentage estimates of each category are not derived from anything other than estimation based on what I’ve seen, and my limited understanding of the macroeconomics of income in the United States, so don’t take them for more than an approximation. I’ll assess the social role of each of these classes in order, from bottom to top.

This is, one should note, an exposition [2] of social class rather than income.

Therefore, in many cases, precise income criteria cannot be defined, because there’s so much more involved. Class is more sociological in nature than wealth or income, and much harder to change. People can improve their incomes dramatically, but it’s rare for a person to move more than one or two rungs in a lifetime. Social class determines how a person is perceived, that person’s access to information, and what opportunities will be available to a person. 对于美国社会而言，人们通常假想存在一个有次序的分层。其中，有三个层级 存在显著的差别，在这里我把它们称为劳动阶层、绅士阶层和统治阶层；另外 还有一个阶层与这三个阶层几乎毫无关联，这就是社会底层。我对这三个阶层 人口比例所做的估测，可以说是完全依据我的经验，而并不是权威的数据；不 过，我相信有数据作为参照将会助于读者理解这篇文章。需要指明的一点是， 收入的多少并不能完全决定人所在社会阶层的高低——一个人在短期内可能会 大幅提升自己的收入，而在一代人的时间内往往很难跨越一到两个阶层。不同 阶层的差异主要体现在人的成长环境、获取信息的方式和拥有机会的数量的不 同。在接下来的篇幅里，我将试图解释每一层级的特点、该系统的运转机制， 以及层级之间的矛盾。

Illustration from a 1916 advertisement for a vocational school in a US magazine

Typical depictions of social class in the United States posit [1] a linear, ordered hierarchy. I’ve actually come to the conclusion that there are 3 distinct ladders, with approximately four social classes on each. Additionally, there is an underclass of people not connected to any of the ladders. I’ll attempt to explain how this three-ladder system works, what it means, and

Underclass 社会底层 (10%) The underclass are not just poor, because there are poor people on the Labour ladder and a few (usually transiently or voluntarily) on the Gentry ladder who are poor. In fact, most poor Americans are not members of the Underclass.

People in the Underclass are generationally poor. Some have never held jobs.

Some are third-generation jobless, even. Each of these ladders (Labour, Gentry, Elite) can be seen as an infrastructure based, in part, on social connections. However, there are some people who are not connected to any of these infrastructures, and they are the underclass. 社会底层的显著特点体现在每一代轮回性的贫穷。他们在社会上还尚未建立起 人际交往圈，所以他们和其他阶层也几乎毫无关联。 13 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

The Labour Ladder 劳动阶层 (65%) The labour ladder represents “blue-collar” work and is often associated with “working class”, but some people in this distinction earn solidly “middleclass” incomes over $100,000 per year. What defines the Labour ladder is that the work is seen as a commodity, and that there’s rarely a focus on longterm career management. People are assessed based on how hard they work because, in this world, the way to become richer is to work more (not necessarily more efficiently or “smarter”). The Labour ladder is organized almost completely based on income; the more you make (age-adjusted) the higher your position is, and the more likely it is that your work is respected. 综述：对于劳动阶层而言，他们当中有工薪族（出租自己的劳动力，被别人雇 佣来换取生活费用的人群），也有一部分人收入能达到中产水平。不过，对于 他们来说，工作主要是为了满足日常生活所需。在这一阶层里，他们当中大部 分人的工作重复而单调——提高收入主要靠“多花时间多卖力”，而效率提高或 方法改进的空间已近乎饱和——也正因如此，他们职业生涯的发展极为有限。

Secondary Labour 二级劳动者 (L4, 30%) is what we call the “working poor”.

These are people who earn 1 to 3 times the minimum wage and often have no health benefits. Many work two “part time” jobs at 35 hours per week (so their firms don’t have to provide benefits) with irregular hours. They have few skills and no leverage [3], so they tend to end up in the worst jobs, and those jobs enervate [4] them so much that it becomes impossible for them to get the skills that would help them advance. The reason for the name Secondary in this class is that they are trapped in the “secondary” labour market: jobs originally intended for teenagers and well-off retirees that were never intended to pay a living wage. Wages for this category are usually quoted hourly and between $5 and $15 per hour. 对于 L4 群体的劳动者来说，他们缺乏专业技能，薪水刚刚能够达到最低标准 线，而且很多人所从事的工作对健康有一定影响。每日的繁重工作会消耗他们 绝大部分的体力，这也使得他们很难有时间和精力学习新的知识技能。不过， 高中生和大学生在做兼职、假期打工时，常常做这一类的工作。

Primary Labour 初级劳动者 (L3, 20%) is what we tend to associate with “blue-collar” America. If by “average” we mean median, this is the average social class of Americans, although most people would call it working class, not middle. It usually means having enough money to afford an occasional

Apr.4, 2015

vacation and a couple restaurant meals per month. People in the L3 class aren’t worried about having food to eat, but they aren’t very comfortable either, and an ill-timed layoff can be catastrophic. If the market for their skills collapses, they can end up falling down a rung into L4. When you’re in the Labour category, market forces can propel you up or down, and the market value of “commodity” labour has been going down for a long time. Typical L3 compensation is $20,000 to $60,000 per year. 每当提到 L3 群体的劳动者，我们常把他们和美国的“蓝领”联系起来。虽然他 们的年薪已经达到了中位数水平，但他们更多地被称为“工薪族”。他们的收入 还算稳定，却依然会受到市场波动的影响。

Percentage of Population Sorted by Social Class in the United States* 1.5% 10.0% Underclass

23.5%

Labour Gentry 65.0%

Elite

*Data based on author's estimation

High-skill Labour 高级技术劳动者 (L2, 14%) entails having enough income and job security to be legitimately “middle class”. People in this range can attend college courses, travel internationally (but not very often) and send their children to good schools. Plumbers, airline pilots, and electricians are in this category, and some of these people make over $100,000 per year. For them, there must be some barrier to entry into their line of work, or some force keeping pay high (such as unionization). Within the culture of the Labour ladder, these people are regarded highly.

14 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

Apr.4, 2015

对于高级技术劳动者来说，他们可以被名正言顺地称为“中产阶级”——飞行 员、电工以及管道工人都可以划入这一群体。进入这类行业需要一定门槛，通 常需要几年的专业资格培训；另外，该群体受到工会的保护——这使得他们的 收入能够居高不下。

阶层人与人之间的交往方式来看，他们对国界和文化差异的概念相对更加淡 薄，而更专注于其专业领域的探究与交流。与劳动阶层相比，绅士阶层对世界 有着更为国际化的认识，共享着类似的做事方式——即使他们之前未曾谋面， 高水准的教育和丰富的专业经历足以使得他们有较多共同语言。

Labour Leadership 劳动阶层领头人 (L1, 1%) is the top of the Labour ladder, and it’s what blue-collar America tends to associate with success. These are people who, often through years of very hard work and by displaying leadership capability, have ascended [5] to an upper-middle-class income.

They aren’t usually “managers” (store managers are L2) but small business owners and landlords, while they’re often seen doing the grunt work [6] of their businesses (such as by running the register when all the cashiers call in sick). They can generate passive income from endeavours like restaurant franchises and earn a solidly upper-middle income standing, but culturally they are still part of Labour. This suits them well, because where they excel is at leading people who are in the Labour category.

L1 这一群体可以说是劳动阶层领头人，但他们通常不是高级管理人员。他们

Before going further, it’s worth noting that the typical socioeconomic ordering would have each Gentry level two levels above the corresponding Labour level in social standing. Thus, G1 > G2 > (G3 ~= L1) > (G4 ~= L2) > L3 > L4.

当中一部分人通过长年的工作经验积累，成为生产一线的领导者；还有一部分 人成为小生意的主人、店主或是农场主。不过，他们所做的事情依然缺乏技术 含量，保持着较为传统的经营方式——所以从人文和科技影响力的层面来讲， 他们依然属于劳动阶层。

The Gentry Ladder 绅士阶层 (23.5%) England had a landed (拥有地产的) gentry for a while. We have an educated one. Labour defines status based on the market value of one’s commodity work. The Gentry rebels against commoditization with a focus on qualities that might be, from an extensional perspective, irrelevant. They dislike conflict diamonds, like fair-trade coffee, and drive cultural trends. They value themselves not based on their incomes but, much more so, on access to respected institutions: elite universities, leading technology companies and artistic endeavours [7]. Labour aspires to occupational success and organizational leadership, while the Gentry aspires to education and cultural leadership. 综述：对于绅士阶层而言，他们所看重的价值不仅仅在收入水平上，更重要的 是能够有资格出入高端学术机构或商业机构——比如一流高等学府、高新产业 公司，以及艺术区——他们追求在人文和科技领域上取得更高的成就。从绅士

Transitional Gentry 过渡绅士阶层 (G4, 5%) is the lowest rung of the Gentry ladder. It’s the class of people who are coming into the Gentry, usually from L2, and most people in it are looking to attain G3 (and many do). Since the Gentry is defined by education, culture, and cultural influence, earning a four-year degree (which about 20% of American adults have) will usually put a person solidly into G3. 每个阶层并不是孤立的，阶层之间也有相互穿插、渗透的关系——比如 G4 过 渡群体，他们往往从 L2 群体中转移过来。

Primary Gentry 初级绅士阶层 (G3, 16%) is what Americans think of as the cultural “upper-middle class”. They have four-year college degrees and typically have professional jobs of middling autonomy and above-average income, but usually not leadership positions. Incomes in this class vary widely (in part, because the Gentry is not defined by income) but generally fall between $30,000 and $200,000 per year. However, they are often viewed as gauche (不善交际的) by the higher-ranking G1 and G2 classes.

G3 这一群体的人们受过良好的大学教育，有着专业性强的工作以及中产以上 的收入——这使得他们在经济上能够维持很高的独立自主性。不过，在 G1 和 G2 群体看来，他们能够在其岗位上踏实做事，但还不善于拓展人脉。 High Gentry 高级绅士阶层 (G2, 2.45%) tend to come from elite colleges and traditionally gravitated toward “junior executive” roles in medium-sized companies, innovative start-ups, management consultancies, and possibly investment banking (which facilitates the G2-E4 transition). Having interesting, respected work is important to G2’s. To a G2, being a college professor, scientist, entrepreneur, or writer are desirable jobs. Creative control of work is important to G2’s, although not all are able to get it (as creative 15 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

jobs are so rare). Members of this social class aggressively manage their careers to get the most out (in terms of intellectual and financial reward) of their careers, but what they really want is enough success and money to do what they really value, which is to influence culture.

G2 群体的人们通常从顶尖高等学府毕业，并在职场生涯中渐渐发展为普通公 司或大学的领导者。大学教授、科学家、企业家，或是作家，一般都属于这一 阶层，可以说是引领社会发展的中坚力量。他们所从事的行业需要不断注入创 意和革新，所以其收入的绝大部分依靠脑力劳动（如发表学术论文、科研、管 理以及投资）。他们在名望和金钱上获得成功以后，使得他们能够推行其价值 观和做事方式，进而影响一大批年轻人或大众文化。

Here I would say that G2 is my native social class, and probably that of most of my readers. 作为本文的作者，我会把自己归入 G2 阶层——包括现在能够读 到这篇文章的读者，一般也属于 G2 阶层。

Cultural Influencers 对社会文化具有影响力的阶层 (G1, 0.05%) are the pinnacle (尖顶) of the Gentry. For G1, I’m not talking about “celebrities” celebrities are a bizarre and tiny category that mixes all three ladders (I’d argue that they’re the upper tier of L1; most lack the power of Elites and the refinement of the Gentry). Rather, I’m talking about people who are widely recognized as smart, knowledgeable, creative, and above all, interesting. G1’s are not “famous” in the celebrity sense, and most of them aren’t that rich. I’d guess that their incomes vary mostly from $100,000 to $1 million per year, which is low for a social class that is so difficult to enter.

It’s quite likely that G1 is expanding, and it was probably much smaller in the past. The internet is allowing more people to become well-known and have some degree of cultural influence. Many bloggers have entered G1 without relying on established institutions such as publishers or universities (which used to be the only way). That said, G1 requires reliability in attention; people having their 15 minutes don’t count.

G1 群体是绅士阶层的最高级别。社会上大多数的名人，其实分布于多层阶级 当中——名人一般会缺乏掌权者的权势或绅士阶级的才能。G1 群体未必是社 会上的名人，却具有极高的聪明才智，精通其专业领域并把握其最新发展动 向，为社会提供前沿而有深度的信息服务，在其行业有着强大的影响力。这些 人可以说是孜孜以求的探路者——随着信息技术的发展，他们所产生的影响力 会日益显露出来——预计在不久的将来，更多的人会跨入 G1 这一群体。

Apr.4, 2015

The Elite Ladder 统治阶层 (1.5%) This is an infrastructure “at the top of society”, but many of the people it includes are in many ways nowhere near the top. People complain about “the 1%”, but the reality is that most of that top 1.0% are nowhere near controlling positions within society.

Not all of the Elite are in the top 1% for income, but most will have the opportunity to be. The Elite includes everyone from billionaires to out-ofcollege investment banking analysts (who earn a middle-class income in one of the most expensive cities on the planet). What they have in common is that they are exerting themselves toward ownership. Labour provides the work and values effort and loyalty. The Gentry provides culture and values education and creativity. The Elite owns things and values control and establishment. 综述：对于统治阶层来说，他们通常并不在具体职位上掌权，更大程度上是幕 后的决策者和操纵者——他们拥有并努力维系社会上大部分的资产。劳动阶层 珍视工作上的努力与对岗位的热爱，为社会提供劳动增值；绅士阶层重视教育 与创新，为社会提供科技与人文方面的信息服务；而统治阶层是大型资产的所 有者，掌控和建立庞大的帝国。

As with the Gentry and Labour, when comparing these ladders, one should consider an Elite rung to be two levels above the corresponding Gentry rung, so in terms of social standing, E1 > E2 > (E3 ~= G1) > (E4 ~= G2) > G3 > G4.

The Strivers 打拼者 (E4, 0.5%) are another transitional class that is generally for young people only. They aren’t actually Elite, but they might, if lucky, move into E3. Junior investment bankers, law firm associates, and young start-up entrepreneurs are in this category. They’re trying to “break in” to something rich and successful. If they get in, they’ll become solid E3. If they fail in doing so, they usually return to G2: upper-middle-class professionals not strongly bound to the Elite infrastructure. G2 is usually a happier place than E4, but E3’s and E4’s tend to deride (嘲笑) this transition.

E4 这一群体主要是年轻人——金融、法律界的专业人士以及创业公司领头人 都在这一行列——他们在进行不断的尝试并试图打入统治阶层。一旦打入，他 们很有可能会坐稳 E3 平台；退而求其次的话，他们也会返回到 G2 平台。

16 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

Elite Servants 统治者仆人 (E3, 0.8%) are the law-firm partners and senior investment bankers and corporate executives that might be called the “working rich” and they comprise what was once called the “white-shoe [8]” culture. They’re quite well-off, as far as servants go, often earning incomes from $200,000 to $5 million per year, but their social standing is conditional.

They serve the rich, and the rich have to keep finding them useful for them to maintain their place. It’s not an enviable place to be, because the social expectations associated with maintaining E3 status require high spending, and even the extremely well-compensated ($1 million per year and up) E3’s rarely have the savings to survive more than a year or two without a job, because of the need to maintain connections. E3’s tend to have as many money problems as people in the lower social classes. E3’s also suffer because they live in a “small world” society driven by reputation, longstanding grudges and often petty contempt. E3’s still get fired – a lot, because the pretence that justifies E3-level status (of a large-company “executive”) requires leadership and many don’t have it – and when it happens to them, they can face years during which they can’t find appropriate employment.

E3 群体主要是金融、法律界的资深业内人士以及大型跨国公司总裁。他们虽 然有着极高的薪酬，但依然扮演幕后商业大亨的随从角色，妥协于巨头公司文 化。这一群体在表面上十分风光，但可能并不能够令所有人羡慕——为了保持 这一地位，他们需要持续不断地维系人脉并付出很高的时间与代价；同时他们 也需要应对层出不穷的资金支出矛盾。另外，“统治者仆人”同样会面临被解雇 的风险——因为并不是每个人都有卓越的领导才能的——一旦问题出现使得他 们从大型公司总裁的位置上退下来，这可能会使得他们在几年之内都难以接手 新的工作。

People tend to think of face leaders (politicians and CEOs) as belonging to a higher social class, but most are E3. If they were higher, they wouldn’t have to work so hard to be rich. Examining our most recent presidents, Barack Obama is G1, the George Bushes were E2, Bill Clinton was E3, and Reagan was in the celebrity category that is a hybrid of E3 and L1. John Kennedy was E2, while Lyndon Johnson was L1. Most CEOs, however, are strictly E3, because CEOs are “rubber gloves” that are used for dirty work and thrown aside if they get too filthy. There’s too much reputation risk involved in being a corporate CEO for an E2 to want the job under most circumstances.

Apr.4, 2015

人们往往觉得台面上的领导者（比如政治家和跨国公司总裁）的社会地位会属 于更高的级别，然而他们当中的大部分处于 E3 平台。这些 CEO 或政客在任职 期间一旦出现闪失和差错，他们便立马自动成为“挡箭牌”。

National Elite 国家级统治者 (E2, 0.19%) are what most Americans think of as “upper class” or “old money”. They have Roman Numerals in their names and their families have attended Ivy League (常春藤盟校) colleges for generations. They’re socially very well connected and have the choice not to work, or the choice to work in a wide array of well-compensated and highlyregarded jobs. Rarely do they work full time under traditional employment terms – never as subordinates, sometimes as executives in an apprentice role, often in board positions or “advisory” roles. It’s uncommon that an E2 will put a full-time effort into anything, because their objective with work is to associate their names with successful institutions, but not to get too involved.

To maintain E2 status, being wealthy is required. It takes about $500,000 per year, after tax, in income at a minimum. However, it’s not hard for a person with E2 status and connections to acquire this, even if the family money is lost. The jobs that E3’s regard as the pinnacle of professional achievement (the idea that such a notion as “professional achievement” exists is laughable to them; paid full-time work is dishonourable from an E2 perspective) are their safety careers. 对于 E2 群体，维系这一阶层地位需要亿万资产——他们当中有欧洲国家的皇 室，也有世代从常春藤盟校毕业的家族。“统治者仆人”所追求的职业生涯巅 峰，对于他们来说是稀松平常的。他们常常参与高级别的仪式和社会活动—— 仿佛他们的到访会使得周围蓬荜生辉。

Global Elite 世界级统治者 (E1, up to 60,000 people worldwide, about 30% of those in the U.S.) are a global social class, and extremely powerful in a transnational way. These are the very rich, powerful, and deeply uncultured barbarians from all over the world who start wars in the Middle East for sport, make asses of themselves in American casinos, rape ski bunnies at Davos, and run the world. Like the Persian army in 300, they come from all over the place; they’re the ugliest and most broken of each nation. They’re the corporate billionaires and drug kingpins and third-world despots (专制君 主) and real estate magnates. They’re not into the genteel, reserved “WASP culture” of E2’s, the corporate earnestness and “white shoe” professionalism 17 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

of E3’s, or the intellectualism and creativity of G1’s and G2’s. They are all about control, and on a global scale. They aren’t mere management or even “executives”. They’re owners. They don’t care what they own, or what direction the world takes, as long as they’re on top. They almost never take official executive positions within large companies, but they make a lot of the decisions behind the scenes.

Unlike the National Elite, who tend toward a cultural conservatism and a desire to preserve certain traits that they consider necessary to national integrity, the Global Elite doesn’t give a shit about any particular country.

They’re fully multinational and view all the world’s political nations as entities to be exploited (like everything else). They foster corruption and crime if it serves their interests, and those interests are often ugly. Like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI, their reason for living is to create monuments to nonexistence. 国家级统治者尚能够为本国国民利益着想，而对于世界级统治者来说，他们根 本不在乎是哪一个国家，他们早已把世界看作一个整体，不断进行掠夺。他们 不是高级管理者，也不是总裁，而是巨型公司和商业帝国的所有者。他们并不 关心做什么领域、什么方向，只要能够在世界范围内搜刮资源、财产和盈利， 并巩固其至高无上的权力，任何事情都是可以去做的。顶级的商业大亨、房地 产巨头，以及第三世界的专制君主，都可以划入这一群体。

E1 is pretty much objectively evil, without exceptions. There are decent people who are billionaires, so there’s no income or wealth level at which 100% objective evil becomes the norm. But if you climb the social ladder, you get to a level at which it’s all cancer, all the way up. That’s E1. Why is it this way? Because the top end of the world’s elite is a social elite, not an economic one, and you don’t get deep into an elevated social elite unless you are very similar to the centre of that cluster, and for the past 10,000 years the centre of humanity’s top-of-the-top cluster has always been deep, featureless evil: people who burn peasants’ faces off because it amuses them. Whether you’re talking about a real person like Hitler, Stalin, Erik Prince, Osama bin Laden, or Kissinger, or a fictional example like The Joker, Kefka, Walter White, or Randall Flagg; when you get to the top of society, it’s always the same guy. Call it The Devil, but what’s scary is that it needs (and has) no supernatural powers; it’s human, and while one its representatives might get knocked off, another one will step up.

Apr.4, 2015

Ladder Conflict 阶层之间的矛盾概况 What does all this mean? How do these ladders interrelate? Do these three separate social class structures often find themselves at odds (in disagreement) and fight? Can people be part of more than one?

What I’ve called the Labour, Gentry, and Elite “ladders” can more easily be described as “infrastructures”. For Labour, this infrastructure is largely physical and the relevant connection is knowing how to use that physical device or space, and getting people to trust a person to competently use (without owning, because that’s out of the question for most) these resources.

For the Gentry, it’s an “invisible graph” of knowledge and education comprised largely of ideas. For the Elite, it’s a tight, exclusive network centred on social connections, power, and dominance. People can be connected to more than one of these infrastructures, but people usually bind more tightly to the one of higher status, except when at the transitional ranks (G4 and E4) which tend to punt people who don’t ascend after some time.

The overwhelmingly high likelihood is that a person is aligned most strongly to one and only one of these structures. The values are too conflicting for a person not to pick one horse or the other. 我们首先对每个阶层的特点进行小结：劳动阶层主要从事具体而实际的工作； 绅士阶层崇尚知识、教育和新的思想；统治阶层建立起一个排外的小圈子，看 重人脉、权力和主导地位。

I’ve argued that the ladders connect at a two-rung difference, with L2 ~ G4, L1 ~ G3, G2 ~ E4, and G1 ~ E3. These are “social equivalencies” that don’t involve a change in social status, so they’re the easiest to transitions to make (in both directions). They represent a transfer from one form of capital to another. A skilled labourer (L2) who begins taking night courses (G4) is using time to get an education rather than more money. Likewise, one who moves from the high gentry (G2) to a 90-hour-per-week job in private wealth management (E4) is applying her refined intellectual skills and knowledge to serving the rich, in the hope of making the connections to become one of them.

That said, these ladders often come into conflict. The most relevant one to most of my readers will be the conflict between the Gentry and the Elite. The Gentry tends to be left-libertarian and values creativity, individual autonomy, 18 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

and free expression. The Elite tends toward centre-right authoritarianism and corporate conformity, and it views creativity as dangerous (except when applied to hiding financial risks or justifying illegal wars). The Gentry believes that it is the deserving elite and the face of the future, and that it can use culture to engineer a future in which its values are elite; while the upper tier of the Elite finds the Gentry pretentious [9] and subversive [10]. The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is incredibly contentious [11]. It’s a cosmic, ubiquitous war between the past and the future. 说到阶层之间的矛盾，最为明显、激烈的斗争发生在绅士阶层和统治阶层之 间。绅士阶层往往代表左翼，崇尚公平、创意、个人独立发展以及自由言论。 然而统治阶层更倾向于代表权力独裁和大公司保守主义，常常把新想法视为可 疑而危险的事物。 绅士阶层认为他们面向未来、孜孜以求，相信在未来他们能够成为新的掌权阶 层；而当今的统治阶层一方面认为绅士阶层有些自命不凡，另一方面绅士阶层 对他们也极具颠覆性。绅士阶层与统治阶层的激烈斗争无处不在，在过去未曾 停息过，在将来也不会止息。

Between the Gentry and Labour, there is an attitude of distrust. The Elite has been running a divide-and-conquer strategy between these two categories for decades. This works because the Elite understands (and can ape) the culture of the Gentry, but has something in common with Labour that sets the categories apart from the Gentry: a conception of work as a theatre for masculine dominance. This is something that the Elite and Labour both believe in – the visceral strength and importance of the alpha-male in highstakes gambling settings such as most modern work – but that the Gentry would rather deny. Gender is a major part of the Elite’s strategy in turning Labour against the Gentry: make the Gentry look effeminate. That’s why “feminist” is practically a racial slur, despite the world desperately needing attention to women’s political equality, health and well-being. 统治阶层所采取的一种策略是，挑拨离间劳动阶层和绅士阶层，激化之间的矛 盾，从而顺势掌控这两个阶层。

The relationship between the Gentry and Elite is one of open rivalry, and that between the Gentry and Labour is one of distrust. What about Labour and the Elite? That one is not symmetric the Elite exploit and despise Labour as a class of useful people. How does Labour see the Elite? They don’t. The Elite

Apr.4, 2015

has managed to convince Labour that the Gentry (who are open about their cultural elitism, while the Elite hides its social and economic elitism) is the actual “liberal elite” responsible for Labour’s misery over the past 30 years.

In effect, the Elite has constructed an “infinity pool” where the Elite appears to be a hyper-successful extension of Labour, lumping these two disparate ladders into an “us” and placing the Gentry and Underclass into “them”. 那么，统治阶层与劳动阶层的关系是如何的呢？对于统治阶层来说，他们看不 起劳动阶层，只是在单方面利用其劳动力；而对于劳动阶层来说，他们看不清 统治阶层的真实面貌。一方面，统治阶层隐藏其领导权，尽力把绅士阶层推到 劳动阶层的前面，把劳动阶层出现的问题包袱丢给绅士阶层去承担。另一方 面，统治阶层努力讨好劳动阶层，让他们以为劳动阶层之上即是统治阶层，给 他们造成“空中泳池”的幻象，所以劳动阶层往往看不到他们和统治阶层之间 存在的巨大间隔。

Analysis of Current Conflict 现阶段矛盾分析 Despite its upper ranks being filled by people who are effectively thugs (不法 之徒), the Elite isn’t entirely evil. By population, most of them are merely E3 and E4 stewards with minimal decision-making power, and a lot of those come from (and return to) the Gentry and maintain those values. On the other hand, Elite values tend to be undesirable, because at that structure’s pinnacle are the E1 crime bosses. There are good people within the Elite, even though the Elite itself is not good.

For virtue, the Gentry does better. I don’t want to fall into the American fallacy of conflating (混淆) “middle class” with virtue, and there are some awful and good people in all social classes, but I think that the Gentry is a more inclusive and reflective elite – one of ideas and values, not based on exclusivity.

One Gentry stronghold for a long time has been high technology, a meritocracy (知识界精华) where skill, know-how, and drive enabled a person to rise to technical leadership of increasing scope and eventually business leadership and entrepreneurship. This created the engineering culture of Hewlett-Packard and the “Don’t Be Evil” mantra of Google. This is Gentry culture asserting itself. Be ethical, seek positive-sum outcomes, and win by being great rather than by harming, robbing, or intimidating others. It’s not how business is practiced in most of the world – zero-sum thuggery is a lot 19 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化

more common – but it’s how great businesses are made. This weird world in which self-made success was regarded higher than entrenchment, symbolized in Silicon Valley, enabled people from the Gentry to become very rich and Gentry ideas to establish lasting success in business. 从道德层面上来讲，绅士阶层的所作所为相对更好一些。绅士阶层包容性强， 善于反省，也易接受新事物，致力于创造真正的价值，而不是倚靠排外而维系 利益。虽然当前统治阶层传承和拥有大部分资产，但绅士阶层掌握着大量专业 信息——这使得他们在信息时代具有很强的竞争力，统治阶层的实力被不断削 弱。比如，绅士阶层的一个明显优势是长期掌握前沿的核心技术，其中一部分 人成为科技界的领军团体——这使得他们企业家式的领导能力茁壮成长。绅士 阶层在过去几年间在科技领域所创造的奇迹，也正是他们当代的价值宣言。 本文原载于：https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-laddersystem-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/

[1] posit (verb):Put forward as fact or as a basis for argument 设想，假定 [2] exposition (noun): A comprehensive description and explanation of an idea or theory 阐述；博览会 [3] leverage (verb): The power to influence a person or situation 杠杆作用； 影响力

Apr.4, 2015

information. Math is the language of science, whereas regular literary language and other subjective mediums (air for music) and materials (clay for pottery, canvas for painting) preside over artistic endeavours. Precise empirical data, procedures and observations are important in science so that if you make a discovery, other scientific researchers can replicate and thus verify your results.

[8] White shoe firm is a phrase used to describe leading professional services firms in the United States, particularly firms that have been in existence for more than a century and represent Fortune 500 companies. It typically—but not always—refers to banking, accounting, law, and management consulting firms, especially those based in New York and Boston.

[9] pretentious (adj): Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed 狂妄的，自命不凡的 [10] subversive (adj): Seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution 颠覆性的，破坏性的 [11] contentious (adj): Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial 引起争论的 推荐栏目：https://www.boundless.com/

[4] enervate Make (someone) feel drained of energy or vitality 使失去活力； 使衰弱

[5] ascend (verb): Go up or climb 攀登 [6] grunt work: work that is repetitious, often physically exhausting, and boring 枯燥而乏味的工作 [7] An artistic endeavour revolves around the emotions, creativity and individualism. Typically they involve the humanities and the arts, be it literature, music, painting, interior design, etc. The emotional element is always latently or potentially or overtly present in that you feel emotions and intuitions when creating the art. Art is highly individualistic so that whatever one experience, someone else could not totally replicate. Individual creativity is celebrated. For science, however, objectivity, standard repeatable experiments, logic and rational observation prevail. Emotions are kept to a minimum because they could skew our objective, unbiased, quantitative (versus artistic which is qualitative) inferences, or reasoning with facts and

Cloud Powered Education Boundless improves education for millions of students and educators through educational resources powered by cloud technology. With content created by a community of educators, who work side-by-side with subject-matter experts, Boundless provides ready-to-use online content, study materials, and assessment items to make teaching more efficient and learning more effective.

20 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Aug.12, 2015

导读：日复一日，年复一年——你现在对生活的感觉是怎样的？本文作者设身 处地地从他周围人的视角出发，对他们的感受进行了细致的描述分析，从而为 我们总结出了看待生活的两种不同视角——静态视角和动态视角，体现了两种 截然不同的心态。在这两种心态之间，你又属于哪一种呢？

The Static and Dynamic View of Life Joseph Rowlands, Sep. 6, 2002

precise and useful. I'll start with an explanation of the two competing views of life, before comparing and contrasting them.

I'll begin with the static view of life.

Static View of Life: The static view of life holds that life is a state – it’s like a position you get to.

At an end point you secure or maintain. An analogy is being satiated after a nice meal. You've arrived at the state, or secured it. Over time, you start to lose the position, though. You automatically move farther away from it. You can then act again in order to re-secure the position. Without action, you'll eventually stop being satisfied, and become hungry.

In this view, life is the opposite of death. Death is the state at which your mind and body stop functioning. It's a point that when you reach it, it fundamentally changes what you are. You go from being a living breathing entity, to a corpse. In this sense, death is very clear-cut. We can take a similar view of life. Life, then, is the state in which your mind and body still function. It's the condition before death.

What is life? What do we mean when we say the word? Since the word stands at the centre of Objectivist ethics, the answer to this question has widereaching implications. We say that life is our standard of evaluation when judging morality. It seems like it'd be a good idea to take a closer look at the term. This lecture is intended to determine what exactly the meaning of the word ‘life’ is. I'll discuss different possible meanings, and the implications of both.

So to start, I'm making the claim that there are two very different, competing ideas for the meaning of life - I call these the static and the dynamic view of life. I believe that static view of life is the more predominant view. I also believe it to be the incorrect view, which I'll attempt to show throughout this lecture. The dynamic view of life is far less common, but appears to be more

With this view of life in mind, let's look at some implications to this view of life. To start, since life is our standard of morality, what implications would that have on our ethics. What kind of actions would we take, and how will we evaluate those actions according to this view.

If you think of life as the state of not being dead, there’re a lot of things you can do to prevent death. You can put a large zone of comfort between you and death. The easiest example is having lots of money. Money can buy medical treatment, food, clothing, shelter, self-defence...the list goes on and on. So to ensure your life, you could seek to gain large sums of money.

Next, your health is an important indication of how far away you are from death. You can even say it's the direct measure. Money is an abstract measurement of how far you are from death. It adds long term security, and protection against surprises. Health, though, is right there. If you fail in any of your needs in life, you can see your health deteriorate. Everything is geared towards increasing your health, and decreasing illness.

21 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Aug.12, 2015

Then there is risk. If life is a state, then you have to avoid actions that might lead to death. Risk-minimization is important. In modern days, where medical science is pretty useful, and food is abundant, non-natural death is relatively very dangerous. Sudden accidents can kill you even if you're very healthy, and have lots of money. So reducing risks is one of the ways of promoting life.

A third, and similar instance of this view of life is marriage. A lot of young people view marriage as a position to reach in life. It's supposed to bring happiness. I've seen people who think that once they get married, many of their troubles will go away. They'll have secured companionship, and they'll be able to focus on other things. In this sense, marriage is seen as an endproduct - a value that is achieved.

You can continue this method of looking at life, and determining values.

Some are more abstract. Capitalism, for instance, reduces threats of war, violence from your own government, makes food more plentiful, encourages medical science to progress, etc. You can look at all of these ends which helps buffer your from death.

So to review, the static view of life holds that life is a state. Actions should be taken to preserve or strengthen this state. Since it's a state, you can measure it at any particular time. You can point to the money, marriage, house, or wellpaying job as proof of your successful living. The focus is very much on the values you accomplish. I'll now turn to the dynamic view of life.

I said earlier that the static view of life was predominant. Now that we have a better idea of what it is, we can point to instances of this view. There are a number of them, so I'll concentrate on some of the bigger ones.

Dynamic View of Life:

First, there's the idea of 'success'. People strive for it, and others are jealous of it. So what is it? Well, many people would say that 'success' is having accomplished great things, or acquiring large amounts of wealth. Success usually involves having a nice paying job, a comfortable house, sporty cars, beautiful wife and kids, and a dog or cat. It can include having made a scientific breakthrough, or becoming President of the United States, or starting a successful business. This view of success is very much based on a view that life is a state. It points to a pretty picture, showing all of the things you have or have done.

A second instance of the static view of life is the goal of retirement (引退) .

Many people yearn [1] for the day they'll be able to quit their job because they've got enough money. They have this idea that maybe they'll take it easy, hang out with friends or loved ones, and stop wasting so much of their lives.

They can travel the world, meet interesting people, and not have a worry in the world. I say this is the static view of life because it seeks a point in life where you are finished. You have everything you need to live. There's no point continuing to struggle because you've secured, as well as you can, the bulk of your contest against death.

The dynamic view of life holds that life is a process, not a state. Ayn Rand said "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." Notice the term 'process'. It's a "process of self-sustaining and self-generated action".

In this view, life is not a state, but a series of actions. Life isn't a place you reach, but the process of reaching it. Life is action. It's the things you do. It's the process of accomplishing goals, not just the end results of the goals. Life is action. Life is the things you do and accomplish.

In the analogy I gave earlier, I compared the static view of life to being satiated. In the dynamic view of life, being satiated may be the end target, but it's the process of producing food, cooking, eating, and digesting that we would call life. This is not to say being satiated is not the goal. That is still the ends being pursued. But life is not simply the ends. It's the entire process, from start to finish.

So life isn't just the things you accomplish. It's not having a lot of goods, or having accomplished a lot. It very much depends on how you gained those goods, and how you achieved it. It's not the money in your wallet, but how you got the money. Did you earn it? Did you steal it? Or did you find it in an old pair of pants?

In this view of life, values are still important, but for a different reason.

They're not there to simply stave off (避开) death. They're there to improve 22 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Aug.12, 2015

your ability to live. Ever heard the phrase "it takes money to make money"?

The point is that to accomplish bigger things, in shorter periods of time, you are benefited from wealth that you've already achieved.

wisdom to pick the right friends and lovers. You need the patience to deal with any little problems that happen, and the perspective in order to judge how things are going.

You can think of values as stepping-stones that further your life. They increase your ability to act in your own self-interest. Each value accomplished allows you to increase your range of possible movements.

Values such as money, education, skills, friendships, and yes, philosophy, all widen your scope of actions. It increases both the kinds of things you can do, and the amount of them.

Having a nice paying job is great, but you need the skills to do the job. You need the ability and the habit of seeing new opportunities. You need to have the initiative to take on new roles within the company. You need to be responsible with your authority, and dependable as an employee. You need to accomplish your tasks on time, and contribute positively. Even more important, you need to have alternatives if your particular company goes under. You need a broad enough skill set to get jobs elsewhere. You need to retain your ability to work hard and learn new jobs.

If a soda and a candy bar each cost a dollar, and you've got one dollar, you have to choose. If you have two dollars, you can have both. So you can choose more combinations. But you may also find that two dollars can buy you a hamburger. So you have even more possible actions to take. This is true of all values. Having more knowledge allows you to learn even more. Having combinations such as education and money can allow for unique opportunities, such as an entrepreneurial venture or impressing a woman.

拥有一份高薪的工作是很棒的一件事，但更重要的是你需要怎样的技能做好这 份工作。你需要有能力和习惯发现新的机会，你需要主动地在公司担当新的责 任。你需要对你的分内之事负责，努力做一个可信赖的员工。你需要在一定时 间里完成你的任务，而且做出积极贡献。你需要锻炼出广阔的职业技能，从而 使得你不论走到哪里都会有工作。你需要维持、拓展你的技能，从而获得机会 做更高级的事情。

The dynamic view of life does not mean action for the sake of action.

Remember, it's a process of "self-sustaining and self-generated action". The end to which the actions are aimed is furthering your ability to live, or in other words, furthering your life. The goal of your life is to continue your life.

Which means the goals of your actions should be to continue acting.

Another part of the dynamic view is the "self-generated" aspect. Gaining values is unimportant if you're not the one doing it. Life is self-generated action. Others can't live for you. They can make it easier or harder for you to live, but ultimately you are the one that lives your life.

Let's get a little more specific. We're trying to improve our ability to live. So let's go over a few examples of what that means. I've already provided some values, such as money and health, that help ensure that you don't die. And not dying is a good thing if you want to keep acting.

You can contrast this with the static view of life. With it, you're goal is to stave off death. This means that others could provide you with the tools you need to stave off death, assuming that they are reliable. If you have very rich parents, they can give you all the money you need. You never need to work for it. With the static view of life, this would be okay.

But there are other things you need. Education is a big one, and one that's widely recognized. But it's only part of the picture. You also need the ability to think logically. You need the ability to learn, and the habits of pursuing new knowledge. You need to make judgments about what knowledge will be useful in the future, and what is the best method of acquiring and maintaining that knowledge.

You not only need relationships with people, at both the friendship level and the romantic level, but you need the ability to maintain them. You need the

在静态视角下，如果你是“富二代”，你可以从你父母那里得到所需的财产。 你不需要为此而拼命工作。在静态视角下这是可以被人所接受的。

The dynamic view of life rejects this, though. Life isn't just about having values, but seeking and acquiring them. If your parents have gave you everything you ever desired, you wouldn't be living. You might be alive, as in your body and mind might still function, but you wouldn't be living. 但是动态视角不提倡这样做。生活并不仅仅是为得到有价值的东西——寻求和 获取的过程被视为更重要的事情。

23 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Let's go further. Imagine a world where every desire is provided by another.

Hungry? Someone feeds you. Want the lawn mowed? They'll do it for you.

Want the kitchen cleaned? They'll wash it. You wouldn't be able to acquire any skills, because others would always be there to satisfy them. Need to read something? Someone will read it to you. Need to count to ten or do simple math? Someone's there to do it for you. Every possible need would be taken care of by another. 我们可以想象这样一个“极乐世界”：当你饿了的时候，接着会有人给你做好 饭；当你想修剪草坪的时候，接着会有人给你完成；当你想收拾厨房的时候， 接着有人给你收拾好。而这样下来，你并不会获得任何做事的技能。

It's not just that you'd be completely dependent on these people. It's that your life would be empty. There'd be nothing to do, nothing to achieve, no way to improve yourself. It would be you just waiting to die. There would be no actions necessary, which means there would be no values necessary. It would be a truly pointless life. 你在依赖于这些人的同时，你的世界也会变得很空虚——没有事情可做，你的 欲望都会被满足，也没有什么可实现的东西。这样下来，就好像在等待离开这 个世界一样（在临终疗养院其实可以看到这样的场景）。你的欲望虽然都可以 被尽可能满足，但是你生活好像并没有任何意义。

It's not just that it's boring, either. It's that you wouldn't really be living. Think about the phrase "get a life". It means get out there and do something. Pursue values. Accomplish them.

Life is a process. It's the things you do. It's not only action, but purposeful action. And the purposes have to be yours. You have to choose them. You have to pursue them. You have to accomplish them. And when you're done, you have to choose new values. No one else can do it for you. Just as no one else can breathe for you, or think for you. Your life is your responsibility. If you default on the responsibility, the consequences are yours.

Purposeful Living: Life is self-generated, self-sustaining action. Life is purposeful action. It is the process of setting goals, and achieving them. The ultimate purpose is to continue acting. Your actions should be aimed at not only sustaining your current ability to live, but increasing it.

Aug.12, 2015

Man's potential for living is an upward slope. He's born stupid, poor, and funny looking. He's got nowhere to go but up from there. In the process of living, he should gain knowledge, skills, wealth, and values. In almost every category, he has the ability to continually improve his condition.

If you're successful at living, your situation should always be improving.

Your goal is to be better off every day then you were the day before. Whether it's through developing your mind or body, gaining wealth, or meeting interesting people, you are improving your life. This is the "self-sustaining" part of the action. 如果你感觉每天都很有成就感，那么你的生活状态应该会不断地提高，每 天都会感觉更好。不论是通过提升你的思维心智，赚取财富，还是结识有 趣的人，你都在努力提升自己的生活品质。 As your effectiveness at living increases, you can choose larger and more ambitious tasks to pursue. Starting your own company can be an impossible task for someone without relevant knowledge, money, contacts, and skills. As you acquire them, the task becomes easier. In this way, life always progresses. Your range of action increases, and goals that used to be difficult become easier. Tasks that were out of your range move into your sphere of action. Your actions become more advanced as you take advantage of more of your past achievements. 当你的生活能力越来越强，你就能去选择更大、更雄心的任务去完成。比如创 立自己的小公司——如果你没有先前所积累的知识、资金、人脉和所专长的核 心业务，你是连想都不敢想的。当你通过积累得到了它们，开一家属于自己的 公司就会变得相对容易。在你不断地行动之后，那些在过去看起来高远的目 标，现在也变得触手可及。你的行动之所以能够变得更加高级，是因为你过去 的成就和积累帮助了你。

Life requires purposeful action. But we need to take a dynamic view here as well. Just because your actions are immediately aimed at some value does not make them purposeful in the fullest sense of term. Instead, your actions over time need to be integrated towards a common goal. Each successful action should move you farther along your path.

This brings up the idea of stagnation. Under the static view of life, stagnation is fine. It doesn't matter that you're not doing anything with your life, as long 24 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Aug.12, 2015

as you are able to stay alive. The dynamic view, though, rejects stagnation.

Performing the same actions over time, with no change to your situation, is not living. It's merely waiting to die. 在静态视角中，生活的停滞是可以被接受的——因为你已经达到了那个高度。 但是在动态视角中，生活的停滞是不能被接受的。做着重复的事情，不会对你 的生活状态有任何的改观——这并不能叫做是“生活”，而是在等待离开这个 世界。

Action is goal directed. You act in order to achieve values. If over time you act without any positive results, it's as if you didn't act. You've gained nothing from your effort, except staving off death for a little longer. Your actions lose any purpose.

Of course, in the short term they still appear goal-directed. You may farm your land to provide enough food to survive, and continue every year. Every action you take is aimed at some goal. But when seen from a larger perspective, you realize that nothing is being accomplished. What little life you have is fading away slowly, with nothing gained. Every year you accomplish nothing is a year wasted.

Now that the dynamic view of life is clearer, we can re-evaluate a few points.

Earlier I discussed the word 'success' from the point of view of life as a state.

We can see how the dynamic view of life is much different. In the static view, it was all about what you possess, and what goals you have accomplished.

The dynamic view also includes these, but only as part of the complete picture. Success in this sense means successful at living. It includes your past accomplishment since they pertain to your current and future ability to live.

But it also includes much more, like pride, confidence, skills, knowledge, adaptability, courage, etc.

A man who is successful at living is someone who seeks proper values, and achieves them. It's a man who can face change or adversity, and who deals with it. It's a man who's comfortable with himself and his life. Who likes where he is, and where he's going. It's the independent man, who controls his own destiny. It's the man who deals effectively with the world, and deals fairly with himself. It's the man who has the courage to act, the strength of will to pursue that which he knows is right. In short, it's the man who knows how to live, and acts accordingly.

Contrast this with the static view. One has wealth, the other has the ability to produce wealth. One has a relationship or marriage to feel safe, the other spends every effort to achieve the desirable values in a relationship. One has a college degree, the other has the appropriate knowledge, and the ability and will to learn new subjects. One has gotten somewhere, the other is always going somewhere. 动态视角其实并不完全与静态视角冲突，前者只是把后者所看重的，当做副产 品罢了。静态视角关注一个人所拥有财产的多寡，而动态视角更侧重于一个人 获得财产的能力；在静态视角之下，婚姻契约能够使得心中安稳，而在动态视 角之下，人通过一生的努力去实现这个契约。静态视角中，早日大学毕业是为 了一纸文凭，而动态视角中在积累自己的知识、提高自己的学习能力。在静态 视角中，人已经到达了一个地方；而在动态视角中，人始终在朝一个地方前行。

I also mentioned that in the static view of life, risk is to be avoided. If avoiding death is the goal, then you have to be very careful. Never rock the boat. Never take a chance that might leave you in a bad situation.

The dynamic view of life is far different. Risk is a part of life. It makes sense to reduce your chances of failure or worse, but living is the real purpose. If you have to choose between risk and not acting, you would take the risk. If you get to a point in your life where the best opportunities are fairly risky, 25 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

you take them. In this view, it's far better to live and fail, then to sit idle [2] waiting for death. This is the idea behind the phrase "It's better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all". Just substitute 'lived' for 'loved'. 风险在生活中是存在的。每个人的所作所为可能都是由于自己的一时想法所引 起，所以并不能够保证万无一失。但是，与什么都不做相比，选择冒一定的风 险是依然值得的。就像英国诗人坦尼森所说的“与其选择谁都不爱，我宁可选 择爱过而失去”——不过，在这里我们可以替换为“与其选择无动于衷，不如 选择去不断尝试新的事情和新的方法”。

I also mentioned Capitalism as a good in the static view of life. How does the dynamic view look at it? Well, instead of saying that Capitalism is good because it enhances your chance of survival by reducing war, crime, and poverty, the dynamic view of life would say that Capitalism is good because it is the system that really allows you to live. Freedom is a prerequisite for any action, and since your life is the actions you take. By now, it seems that capitalism is the only system truly compatible with life. That the results are great is nice as well, of course. But it's secondary to the freedom. Ask yourself if you'd give up some of your wealth in order to ensure you were left free. Fortunately, there's no trade-off between wealth and freedom.

Aren't They Just the Same?

This finishes up my initial discussion of the static vs. dynamic views of life. I now want to show how they compare in practice. Before I do, though, there's one last topic to discuss. Since most people use a combination of the two views in everyday thinking and conversation, we should ask one more question. Aren't these views really just the same? Or maybe just different aspects of the same thing?

What might lead someone to this question? Well, the static view of life could be "expanded" to include a lot of the elements of the dynamic view. For instance, you might say that having skills and abilities help ensure that you stay alive. The ability to learn, for instance, would be a good hedge [3] against any future changes in your occupation, or other situations that require a lot of new ideas.

Aug.12, 2015

Certain methods are more conducive to staying alive, and they'll allow you to stay alive in the future. Working hard and understanding your job can be seen as directly promoting the static view of life as well.

So are they the same? There's certainly a lot of overlap. I think there are a number of big differences, though.

The first is the goal. In the static view of life, you aim to avoid death. It upholds a negative as your source of values. It's all a struggle against death, which you'll eventually lose. When many people think this through, they ask questions like "what's the point of it all? I'm going to die anyway, aren't I?" In the dynamic view of life you aim to live your life and enjoy the process of living it. Your goal isn't to prevent death, except in that death prevents you from continuing to live. You aim at the positive. The static view just can't be made to match the dynamic view. Even if you try to include elements of the dynamic view, such as your ability to grow as a person, or your mental habits you've developed, the ends are just too different. If given an opportunity to abandon all action for certain security, the static view would take it, and the dynamic view wouldn't. An example is a technological marvel that puts you on a respirator, feeds your body all the nutrients it wants, but doesn't allow you to physically act. Yes, your body would still live on. But that's not life! 在动态视角中，你的目标是享受你一点一滴的努力和生活。你的目标不仅仅是 保持自己的地位，而是在你醒来的每一天都在探索新的事情，向着你的长远目 标前行。反之，假如你有一个机器人，能够时时刻刻喂养你、满足你所有的需 求——虽然你的身体是运转的，但那并不能称得上是生活。

A second difference is a matter of focus - what aspect of life do you focus on.

In the static view, you focus on the state. Even if you claim that a correct process works towards a better state, you still have a predisposition towards looking at what you have, and not how you got it. The view that life is a process, though, keeps you focused on the fact that you are an acting human being. You look at what you're doing, and not what you've done.

Hopefully this should clear up any lingering questions about the differences between the two. I'll now turn to some applications of the two views.

With this in mind, you could then claim that the static view of life is also concerned not just with whether you're alive, but in how you stay alive.

26 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Happiness: Happiness is something we all strive for. But what is it? I claim that there are two fundamentally different ideas of what happiness is, depending on which meaning of life you accept.

In the static view of life, happiness is a point you reach. It can include a number of things, like a wife, kids, a nice house, the gold watch you always wanted, and money in the bank. When people ask "What would make you happy", it's the static view of life. It's the claim that happiness is something you achieve, and then it's yours. "If I just had my own house, I'd be happy."

"If only I could marry this girl, I'd be happy".

In this view of happiness, it's the things you have, or the things you've accomplished that makes you happy. With this in mind, other people could make you happy. If they gave you money, love, a sense of accomplishment.

And even those who claim you can't buy happiness often think in terms of life as a state. They think money won't do it, but love will. Meeting the person of your dreams is all you need to do. In any case, the static view always points to something as the source of your happiness.

The dynamic view of life rejects this. Life is a process. Happiness is the enjoyment of the process of living. It's not about what you have, but how you live your life. Do you enjoy your job? Are you excited about your future? Are you comfortable with your accomplishments? Do you like the people with which you associate? Are you proud of who you are, and what you've done? 然而动态视角的观点和静态视角非常不同。生命是一个过程，幸福在整个过程 中的一点一滴——并不仅取决于你所拥有什么，更重要的是你如何去经营。你 享受你的工作么？你对你的未来和计划感到激动和亢奋么？你对你所取得的成 绩满意么？你喜欢日复一日与你打交道的这群人么？你对你自己是谁，有时会 感到莫名的骄傲么？

Happiness isn't the temporary feeling of joy that occurs when you get something you always wanted, or you succeed in a great accomplishment.

Those are good too. But happiness is more than that. It's an emotional response to a proper evaluation of your own life. The evaluation integrates all of your actions, your values pursued, and every other part of your life. It's the judgment of how well you are living your life.

Aug.12, 2015

幸福并不仅仅是当你得到想要的东西时的那份窃喜，或者是在你取得成功登上 领奖台的光彩瞬间——虽然这些也让人感觉很好，但幸福应该远不止这些。幸 福其实是你对于你自己的所有行动、所有表现的综合评价——是否由衷地感到 幸福，你自己会最为清楚。

Relationships: Another area where a static view of life differs from a dynamic view is in the realm of relationships. From the static view, a relationship is something to acquire, and maybe maintain. You get married to someone, and that's a value gain. You have friends that share values with you. You succeed in creating relationship with people, and maintaining them. You're happy with the fact that you're together with someone great.

The dynamic view has a different focus. It doesn't ask whether you have friendships or are married. It asks what values you are getting from them.

Having a friend is not enough. What's the point? Well, the point may be to share experiences with. To take on challenges together. To face the world with someone you trust.

Your goal is never to merely maintain a friendship. It's to enjoy a friendship.

You have friends in order to achieve values. To enhance your experience of living. Friendships open up opportunities. They allow actions that are not possible without them. The dynamic view of life makes you ask "How can I gain satisfaction and enjoyment from this relationship".

This is similar with other forms of relationships, including romantic relationships. The dynamic view of life always looks at what the relationship is providing. If it's not much, you should act to improve it. Is your romance fading? Do something about it! Spend a weekend together. Write a poem.

Tell her how beautiful and intelligent you think she is. Never take a relationship as a given, never to be questioned. Earn the relationship, and make it work for you. Don't do just enough to prevent your spouse from leaving you. Make it as great as possible.

27 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

Health: I briefly mentioned health as the primary value in the static view of life. It's your distance from death, after-all. So in this sense, the measurement of health is how likely you are to not die, now and in the future.

The dynamic view of health is a bit wider. It's not just a matter of how likely you are to die, but how able you are to live. Are you fit enough to enjoy exercising? Are you strong enough to move your own furniture. How about mental health? Some slight cases of mental illness may not cause you to die, but certainly affect your ability to live. So in this sense, the dynamic view of life views health is a much wider concept.

But there's another difference. The static view of life holds health as some kind of duty. You have to maintain it, since it's what prevents you from dying. Can you smoke? Never. That stuff can kill you. What should you eat?

Only what the doctors say is best for you. Tofu, wheat germ, and seaweed.

How often should you exercise? Every other day. In what form should you exercise? Anything without risk. No sports, cause you could hit your head.

No wind-surfing, cause you could get eaten by sharks. Something nice, safe, and boring. Like jogging. Or yoga.

Of course, the dynamic view of life doesn't buy into any of that. Sure, exercise is good for you, and enables you to live a better life. But it's not a duty. It's part of the process of living. Find ways to enjoy it. Pick the exercises you get excited about. Make trade-offs between exercise and other activities. You're not living in order to stay alive. You stay alive in order to live.

Aug.12, 2015

The dynamic view looks closer at method. It claims that your life is a process, a series of action unified towards a common goal. It also cares about where you are right now, but only in the context of where you're doing with it.

Having a nice job is nice under both views, but the dynamic view also looks at how you do your job, and where you're going from here.

Since the dynamic view is more focused on the process, it's not surprising that it is more compatible with the idea of virtues. Virtues are guides to living your life. They're guides to how to act, and what actions to take. The static view, only concerned with results, is much harder to associate with virtues.

Many people try, showing that virtues lead to the best conclusions, but it's so indirect, and there are always imaginary scenarios where it'd work better defying your virtues.

But working better by what standard? By the standard of a static view of life.

A view of values you possess, and the condition you're living in at some point. Under the dynamic view of life, virtues are far more important. They enable you not only to gain particular values, but make it easier for you to gain future values as well. Through virtues, you develop the correct moral habits that enhance your ability to live. You don't just achieve values. You achieve the ability to achieve values.

The dynamic view of life holds that it's not just the values you pursue that are important, but how you pursue them. In this view, the means become an end as well. There is no moral distinction between them. You never need to sacrifice one for the other. They're all values, and so they can all be judged accordingly.

Morality:

Conclusion:

The last topic I want to discuss is ethics. In a way, this whole talk has dealt with morality. But I want to address a few specific differences.

Let's go over what we've learned. I've shown that there are two very different meanings to the word life. The static view of life holds that life is a state. The state of not being dead. It looks at any particular point in time, and points to what you've got.

Since life is that standard of morality, obviously the differences in views have different results. The static view, always looking at a particular state or condition, will look primarily at the results. How you got there isn't important. What you're going to do now is also not very important. It's only what you have, and how that prevents you from dying.

The dynamic view of life holds that life is a process. You are living when you are acting. It looks at method as much as goals.

28 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 28 期 – 面对生活的两种心态

The two views have very different implications in areas such as health, happiness, and success. In every case given, the dynamic view of life is broader in its implications, and more valuable as a standard of evaluation. It suggests how you should act, and not just what you should act towards.

I'll end this speech on an interesting note. It's been said that men have unlimited desires. As soon as you satisfy some, they have new ones. Many people have taken this as a point to despair about. They think that we can never be happy because we can never achieve everything we want. If you're always left wanting, it must truly be a cruel world.

Aug.12, 2015

[1] yearn (verb): Have an intense feeling of longing for something, typically something that one has lost or been separated from 渴求 [2] idle (adj): (Of a person) avoiding work; Without purpose or effect; pointless 空闲的; 无意义的 [3] hedge (noun): A way of protecting oneself against financial loss or other adverse circumstances 树篱; 保护手段 推荐栏目：

很多人都说，人的愿望是无穷无尽的。即使你满足了一部分愿望，但是人总会 有新的愿望萌生出来。但是你不会一直高兴，因为你总是不能实现所有的愿 望。

Well that's the static view of life talking. When you recognize that life is a process, and it's about the things you do, you realize the implications of their wishes. They wish for a state in which you have nothing further to pursue.

You have no goals, no values, nothing new to accomplish. According to the dynamic view of life, your life would be over at this point. 他们希望到达一种状态，就是实现所有的愿望才会高兴——但这也代表一种终 极理想状态的实现——在这时你不能再实现任何新的目标和愿望。在这种终极 理想状态下，你已经没有任何上升空间，所以这也是一个极度空虚落寞的状 态。

Since September 2012, Aeon has been publishing some of the most profound and provocative thinking on the web. It asks the biggest questions and finds the freshest, most original answers, provided by world-leading authorities on science, philosophy and society.

Fortunately, we live in a world where we can always achieve new and greater things. There's no end to the possibilities we have ahead of us. Thank you.

Everything on the site is free to enjoy. Aeon Magazine publishes an original essay most weekdays, exploring topics such as the nature of consciousness, the psychology of solitary confinement and the missing chapters in the story of human evolution. Its sister channel, Aeon Video, streams short documentaries about society and nature, many of them exclusive to Aeon.

Aeon Ideas, now in open beta, is an entirely new platform designed for dynamic conversations on the defining questions of our age.

幸运的是，在我们所生活的世界，我们始终可以去探索那无尽的可能。

本文原载于：http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/The_Meaning_Of_Life.shtml

About the author: Joseph Rowland (born in 1974) is an electrical engineer living in Santa Clara, California. This article is based on his speech which was delivered in 2002.

Aeon was founded in London by Paul and Brigid Hains. It now has offices in London, San Francisco and Melbourne. It belongs to Aeon Media Ltd. It is not affiliated with any other organisation or political group. Aeon is committed to big ideas, serious enquiry, a humane worldview and good writing. That’s it.

29 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

Dec.6, 2015

导读：在生活当中，“及时行乐”与“为长远目标默默打拼”是常见的矛盾。 不过，这一矛盾很大程度上可以通过制定计划来解决。目标的高远与计划的紧 凑程度，影响着一个人成长的速率。文章通过系统而看似繁杂的论证，最终拨 云见日，显现出一些简单而实用的道理。

Planning Towards Future Joseph Rowland

Rational Ethics Objectivist ethics is a rational ethics. The word 'rational' is defined as "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason". What it means is that Objectivist ethics is based on reason. As any system of ethics, it provides a method of selecting values and actions. But unlike some ethical systems, Objectivist ethics can be non-contradictory, analysable, and systematic. We can use reason to examine and compare our possible values, and choose between them using an objective standard.

What makes it possible to do all of this? A single standard of value. A standard of value is a tool of comparison. It allows you to compare every possible value or action to one another, so you pick the best one. In Objectivist ethics, this standard is life. You can analyse actions based on how well they promote your life. Finishing college will help your life by providing you with better opportunities and the knowledge to pursue new areas. Eating rat poison will harm your life. Staying in a bad relationship would harm your life. Making new friends will help your life. For every action, you can ask "Will this benefit me, or hurt me? Is there something better I could be doing?"

Good afternoon, everyone. Today I'm going to talk about ethics. Specifically, I'm going to talk about how morality can provide us a guide to choosing our actions. It allows us to formulate values, and decide on courses of action; but sometimes it's not very easy.

My goal for this talk is to discuss how we choose between values in the present and values in the future. How do we know which is better? How do we choose between going out with friends on one hand, and staying home to finish that book on epistemology [1] (知识论) on the other hand? How do we choose between the immediate payoff, and those jobs that might require years before you see the return on your investment?

Before I discuss this topic, we need to do a little background work to understand what the issue is. After all, we make these kind of decisions all the time? What's the big deal? So let’s first get into what the real problem is, and then we'll discuss how to solve it.

There are a number of ethical standards you can pick from. The ethics of altruism holds that others' lives are the ultimate standard to judge your action.

You judge your actions based on how well they help other people. Will spending your money to go to the movies benefit others? Shouldn't you donate it to charity?

Environmentalism holds nature as the ultimate standard. You have to ask yourself if your actions will harm nature, or help it. Hedonism holds pleasure as the highest standard. Does it feel good to do? Then do it! There's no limit to the number of possible ethical standards.

With every ethical system that has a single standard of value, you are able to use reason to choose between the myriad (各式各样的) of different possible values, and select those which best further that standard. Of course, I'm not trying to say that any standard you pick is okay or objectively correct. I'm just discussing one way in which epistemology and ethics overlaps. To have an ethics that can be analysed with reason, it must have a standard of value.

30 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

The Problem in Abstract I'll turn now to the problem. The problem is not really a problem of ethics, but a more general problem in epistemology. We can call it the problem of multiple standards.

The basic issue is in making comparisons between different things. To make a valid comparison, you have to specify some standard by which you're comparing them. For instance, you can use length as a standard, and say that this podium (讲台) is shorter than I am. You can use intelligence as a standard, and compare your boss to a tree stump. This is very basic stuff, but the point to remember is that to make a valid comparison, you need a standard of evaluation.

A typical reason for doing these comparisons is to pick between multiple options. Say you need something to stand on to change a light bulb, and you have to choose between the foot stool and the chair. If you have a distance to reach, you can choose between the objects based on their height.

Furthermore, there's rationality and objectivity in your conclusion. If you were to ask someone else to pick between the same objects, they could come to the same conclusions as you did.

Now here's the problem. What happens when you try to compare two items by more than one standard? If you asked someone to pick between the foot stool and the chair, and to select between them based on both height and stability, which would you get?

The problem here is that the two standards could provide different answers.

The sturdiest (坚固稳健的) object may not be the tallest object. If you were to select based on height, you might go for the chair. If you were to select on the basis of stability, the foot stool might win. So now what? How can you rationally choose between the two?

Now, not venturing outside of this scenario, we can see the problem clearly.

If you use two or more criteria for selection, you may find contradictory results. Which criteria do you stick with? Which do you ignore? You can't go with both criteria, since one outcome contradicts the other. How do you choose between them?

Dec.6, 2015

Well, one not so good answer is "you just pick". What does that mean? You go with whatever you feel like, or you flip a coin or something. When you do this, you leave the area of rationality and objectivity. You're no longer using reason to guide your selection. But is this really what people do? Generally not.

The solution to this kind of problem is to find some new standard that actually encompasses the other standards. A really simple example is when you're trying to buy property to develop a house. Now say for the price you are able and willing to pay, you've got two choices. One piece of property is really long, but pretty thin. The other is somewhere in-between in both width and length. Instead of trying to select these by width on the one hand and length on the other, you could resort to the total area of the two. In this way, you're including both of the important features you're looking for.

This is pretty easy to do in practice. Generally, when you're trying to select between multiple options, you have some purpose in mind. There may be many relevant factors you'd like to use in your comparison, but ultimately you have to combine them in a way that best satisfies your goals. It's your goals that allow you to determine which of the criteria to look at, and compare the importance of each criterion.

In the property example, you're trying to build a house. All else being equal, you'd like the larger area. But in fact, other consideration might become more important. A very long strip of land might be too thin to actually build a house on. In life, you rarely get to make choices with such a simple standard as length.

The problem is trying to make a choice while using two different standards at the same time. Whenever there is a disagreement between the results, you cannot rationally choose between them. That is, unless you resort to some new standard that takes into consideration both standards.

As an aside, two standards at once is never useful. If the results are actually the same in both cases, you could have gotten by with just one. The second one is redundant. And whenever the two provide different results, you're stuck without guidance.

31 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

Multiples Standards in Ethics Let's take the example of the light-bulb again. When choosing between things like a foot stool versus a chair, you can resort to the goals that you are trying to accomplish. What are some of your goals? The first is to change the light bulb. But if that were the only goal, you could just pick the taller of the objects. In actuality, you have another goal - to survive this exercise in home repair.

How do you compare these two goals now? Each of them, if taken as a criteria, might produce a different result. Is either more important? And if so, by what standard? This is where a rational ethics requires some ultimate standard by which you judge all of your actions. Only in this way can you hope to make valid comparison between the different goals. In Objectivist ethics, this standard is "life".

One recurring (再现的) problem that other ethical systems have is that the values they promote can be in opposition to your own life. Altruism (利他主 义), as an example, holds the lives of others as the ultimate value. When a choice is to be made between something that benefits yourself, and one that benefits another, altruism will support the latter. How then does an altruist stay alive? Only by abandoning his ethical standard at times.

The point here is that the altruist can't rationally pick between a standard of self-interest and a standard of other people. There's no way of reconciling the two goals. He can't live consistently by a standard of helping other people, so he has to live inconsistently. He has to compromise and choose based on emotions or whims [2] (突然的念头).

So to conclude the background part of this speech, a rational ethics requires a single standard of value by which you can compare all of your possible values and actions. We can't have more than one standard, or we lose the ability to analyse our values rationally. Hopefully this is all clear, and we can move on to the main topic.

Decision Making over Time Here's the problem. You have a choice to make. You can study for your exam tomorrow morning, which may have some impact on which college you get

Dec.6, 2015

into, what career you can get into, and basically how you live the whole rest of your life. Your other choice is to quit studying, go out with friends, and have a good time. Which will you do?

You might be tempted to say "stay and study". After all, studying could have a lasting impact on your life, whereas hanging out with your friends probably won't. But what if you've already done a lot of studying already? Isn't it time for a break? Do you always have to sacrifice the present to achieve some task in the future?

If you haven't guessed it, we have here the problem of multiple standards again. We have values that we can achieve now or in the short-term (going to a party with friends), and we have different values we can pursue for the future (studying for that test, filling out your college applications, learning about different careers, etc). How do we pick between these different values?

How do we integrate values that happen at different times?

Maximize Value?

Normally when making an ethical choice, we attempt to maximize our total value. What's so different about this kind of situation? Sure we have values occurring at different periods of time, but why does this matter? Can't we just pick whichever value is greatest? If the greater value happens later than another, why do we care? To put it another way, can't we just ignore the time component of the value?

The answer is no. It's true that the basic of ethics is maximizing your values.

You try to pick the actions that will provide you the best return on your effort. But this is actually a derivative step in ethics.

The foundation of ethics is in selecting your values, not in just picking the highest of them. Before you can choose the highest values, you first have to go through the process of evaluating the different ends to which you can pursue. You have to decide which of the myriad ends you can pursue will benefit your life, and which oppose your life. And you have to rank them in a value hierarchy, understanding the degree to which they can promote or detract from your life.

32 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

Dec.6, 2015

The truth is, certain accomplishments have different value depending on when you accomplish them. Having a billion dollars right now can be a lot more valuable than you get it at very old age, even if you ignore inflation.

Getting your high school diploma early makes a bigger impact on your life than getting it later. A glass of water right now means less to you than when you get stuck in that desert someday.

know that we cannot rationally pick between two different standards. If neither is satisfactory on their own, adding more doesn't help any. We need to find a single standard by which we can compare all of our choices, regardless of when the different values will be achieved.

The point is that you can't just maximize your values to solve this problem.

It's just pushing the problem back a step. Ultimately, you have to be able to figure out if going to a party is more valuable than studying one more night for that exam. And to do this, you need a single ethical standard.

Well, we don't have to look far for that single standard. Objectivism already has an answer for it, although it might not be that easy to apply it. The Objectivist ethics holds life as the ultimate value, and the standard by which we judge all of our actions. Of course, that's easy enough to say, but using it to select all of your actions is a bit more difficult.

Short-term vs. Long-term Interest

Let's look at life in the context of short-term and long-term values. Long-term interests are usually associated with those actions that lead to your well-being in the future. Short-term values are associated with those values that make you enjoy the present. Both seem to be important components of life, but as we've seen, they don't work alone.

One way people have viewed this problem is by breaking up the values into a short-term self-interest and a long-term self-interest. Both are ways of trying to understand how life as a standard of value can be applied to different time periods. There's a bunch of problems here, though.

The first is that the idea of a short-term self-interest is meaningless. Selfinterest is only meaningful if you're talking about the conditions necessary to live. How can you have an ethical system that is range of the moment? If your actions will shortly lead to death, in what way could it be considered in your interest?

Of course, long-term interest is equally flawed. It seems to continuously call for sacrifice of the present for the future - a future that you'll never get to.

You can never stop to enjoy the moment, because you could be doing something better with your time. In the example I gave before, you could always be studying a little more for that test.

Well, neither of these seems very appealing. A short-term interest where long range planning is impossible and you live at the range of the moment, vs. a long-term interest where sacrifice of your happiness is the norm. So an easy way out is to say that you need both. You need your short-term interest and your long-term interest together.

And here's where the background part of the speech comes into play. We can easily see that we're dealing with two different standards again. We now

Life as the Standard of Value

Quantity vs. Quality Another way of phrasing this classic divide is quantity vs. quality. The longterm interest correlates to quantity. You perform actions that have the best chance of maintaining your life for the foreseeable future. The short-term values correlate to the quality of life, because they focus on enjoying the moment.

It's not exactly the same, of course. Quality of life need not be a short-term concern. You might plan a party for the end of the year, where enjoyment is your primary consideration. The quality can be a long-term goal or a shortterm goal.

But quality vs. quantity has the same problems as before. The first is that quantity as an end in itself is pointless. Why would you want to live a long life if it was dull? Life isn't a duty, it's a value. It's something to be enjoyed.

So quantity on its own is pointless.

But quality is scarcely better. Having a ton of fun all at once, and then dying a sudden death isn't really the point either. We want to live long lives,

33 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

enjoying it the whole time. Not a few minutes of hedonistic (享乐主义的) pleasure and then it's over with. You can't even say that quality of life can be based on a standard of life.

Also, we're again dealing with two different standards. We might say that both standards are life, but we're using that term in two different ways. In one case, we're talking about mere survival - quantity of living is how long you are alive for. On the other hand, we have enjoyment of living, but divorced from any actual requirement of life.

Static vs. Dynamic In my speech last year, I discussed what I called the static and dynamic views of life. I'll recap briefly because it's relevant to this discussion, and can provide insights into how life as a standard of value can be used properly.

The static view of life is the view that life is a state of existence. Specifically, it's the state of not being dead. If you uphold the static view of life as your standard of value, you will aim merely at staying alive. Every action you take will be aimed at distancing yourself from death. This fits in well with the "quantity of life" view we just went over. One of the big problems with this view of life is that it becomes a burden instead of a value.

The dynamic view of life sees life as a process. Instead of focusing on any particular point in time, it looks at an integrated view of your life. How are you living your life? Are you growing as a person? Are you advancing in your career? Do you enjoy your life?

By focusing on the positive acts of living, the dynamic view focuses on how you live your life, not just staying alive. Your methods become as important as your ends. Your achievements build off of each other, and you progress in your life. You try to expand your range of possible actions, so that you can do more with your life.

An Integrated View of Life The nice part about the dynamic view of life is that it integrates your entire life. Instead of looking at life as a series of unconnected actions and goals that eventually ends in death, you integrate it into a single unified image. Think of

Dec.6, 2015

it like a game of chess. Instead of focusing on any particular move, you can look at the entire game, what the different strategies were, and how it all played out. And you can view the game of chess both at the end, as well as while you're actually playing the game.

We can do the same for life. Image you're at the Pearly Gates in front of Saint Peter. You're dead, and it's time to figure out whether god has a sense of humour about this whole Objectivism thing. You look back at your life and see it as a whole. Instead of a series of unrelated events, you see it as a progression from your birth up to the end. When you tell the story of your life, you start at the beginning and show where your actions led. You say "This is what I did with my life." Or better yet, "This was my life."

Of course, you shouldn't wait for death to think about your life as a totality.

It's important to look at your life while you're living it, and evaluate it. Only by seeing it as an integrated whole can you shape it into what you want it to be. Without taking that wider look at things, you're stuck with a range of the moment view of life.

Life is Enjoyable? Imagine that.

Let's turn back to the problem. We're trying to figure out how to choose between actions that lead to values in the short-term, and those that provide value in the more distant future. In a simple way, the life as a process view solves many of these problems.

Instead of thinking about the advancement of your life as some kind of burden or chore, the dynamic view of life encourages you to view it as really living. It's when you're accomplishing things, expanding your horizons, and developing yourself, that you're really living.

This is important because it shows that your actions aren't split into some false alternative of being fun on the one hand, and benefiting you on the other. Too often people think of trying to balance your enjoyment with your productivity. If you accept that false dichotomy, you'll have strange views of your actions. If it's productive, you'll see it as a task or chore that you don't like. If it's for entertainment, you'll feel like you're wasting time and not getting anything done.

34 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

Viewing enjoyment and productivity as mutually exclusive can lead you to a juggling act in life. You may try to avoid doing either kind of action too much, for fear of neglecting the other. In this way, your ethics becomes focused on negatives instead of positives. You spend your time avoiding, instead of pursuing.

The dynamic view of life overcomes this problem by recognizing that enjoyment is impossible without productiveness. Happiness is an emotion based on your evaluation of how well you're living your life, and that part of the living is the enjoyment of that living. You want to look at your life and say "I do great things and love every minute of it".

Dec.6, 2015

it's not present immediately. Later, they might regret having done it, but it doesn't mean they'll be more responsible afterwards.

The alternative is owning your entire life. By projecting your life into the future, you can make decisions and trade-offs. You don't have to consistently sacrifice the present for the future, or vice versa. You can decide what is the appropriate amount of work you need to get done, and occasionally put off pleasure until you can reap it in its entirety.

Accomplishments aren't a moral duty that you perform without benefit. Your accomplishments further your life, and make it exciting to live it. Similarly, recreational activities like games or parties add to your life by providing opportunities to spend time with friends, giving yourself a break from other activities, meeting new people, and giving you intense stimulation you might otherwise be lacking.

For instance, if you are given a specific number of vacation days at your job, you might use them slowly over the course of the year to make lighten your load. But you can also choose to save them up, and take the time to really unwind. For some people, it maybe take a couple weeks from work before they can let themselves relax. Others might do it easier. But in both cases, you are looking at a period of time (say a year) and trying to maximize your value over that year. You don't just take all the vacation immediately as it would be only rewarding in the short-term. Instead, you look at your life over that whole period and make the choice.

Bigger Picture

Break Even

The dynamic view of life is useful because it allows you to see a bigger picture. Instead of focusing on your state of existence now or in the presence, you can combine it all to see an integrated view of your life. In this way you combine what seems to be very different criterion for evaluating your actions, and merge them into a single standard.

This shouldn't be a surprise. People don't live long if they can't project their lives into the future. We all have a ton of experience doing this sort of thing.

You can explore how you've done it in your own life. Many of you have gone or are going to school before entering the workforce. You're giving up an income and a small amount of wealth in the short-term in order to get a significantly higher salary later. It only takes a couple of years to put yourself in a better position than you ever would have if you had skipped higher education.

This applies to the problem of choosing between values now and values in the future. The only way you can compare values at two different times in your life is to combine the different points in your life into a single coherent picture. By looking at the big picture of your life, you suddenly have the means to compare values now vs. in the future.

I think some people view points in their lives as if they were different people.

"Why should I care about the future? I'm alive now and should be having a good time. It's not me that I'm hurting." In a myriad of ways, they justify being irresponsible and doing things that will hurt them eventually. Instead of realizing that they're just hurting themselves, they ignore the damage because

Thinking about things in terms of a break-even point helps. You might not be as well off financially over the first couple of years, but quickly you'll be in a better position than you ever could have been without the additional education. This happens because some course of actions provides a much higher rate of return than others. Although the costs might be high at first, it quickly makes up for it.

The interesting thing here is that the values we normally consider short-term, like entertainment, are often limited at first. As you progress, such as after 35 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

you get a high paying job, your entertainment choices increase. In a short period of time, you're able to afford all of the things you wanted before, and a whole lot more. You end up better off overall, and sometimes significantly so. So those that want to spend a bit of time and money on entertainment or luxury may be making a large sacrifice in the future for a relatively small gain in the present.

Dec.6, 2015

Planning a course of action into the future allows you to integrate your shortterm values with your longer-term values. You incorporate both into your plan, and the successful accomplishment of the plan benefits you in both respects. This is a way of removing the sense that your short-term and longterm goals are in opposition. It ties them together in a beneficial way.

Rate of Progress?

Plan of Action So how do use this expanded view of life? How do you go about weighing values and making decisions? The first thing you need to do is avoid thinking about each decision you make as being isolated from every other. You don't just make a series of isolated value choices. You don't say "I'm hungry" and get something to eat, and then "I'm bored" on work on writing a book.

Although a series of value choices might still allow you to progress in life, they're left unconnected and not integrated.

Instead of a series of unconnected decisions that you constantly re-evaluate, there's a much easier tool. You may have heard of it - it's called planning.

By having concrete goals over various periods of time and formulating a plan, you can coordinate your actions. Your decisions aren't made in isolation to each other anymore. Instead, you're bundling several decisions together in order to accomplish bigger tasks.

So how do you set an appropriate plan? It's not enough to have expanded view of life and make decisions accordingly. There's still a question of how you make the decisions. We've kind of buried the problem by saying look at your life as a whole and coordinate your actions along these lines. We can take into accounts factors like whether you're enjoying your life, or the uncertainties that come with trying to guess what the future has in store, or our own morality. We can see our answer to this problem taking shape, but there are still some open questions.

How fast do we need to progress in life? This one question has a huge impact on our decision making. If we believe that a very slow, gradual improvement of our lives is fine, we'll work mostly at sustaining our lives, and we'll pick more enjoyable but less productive careers. For instance, you might decide to be a school teacher. The pay may not be very good, and there may be very limited chance for promotion, but you get to spend time helping children to learn.

There's a big advantage to this. By formulating a plan of action, you don't have to constantly be concerned with advancing your life. You can stop to smell the roses. You're not making the choice between present and future constantly. Instead, you're looking for a series of actions that leads to advancement in your life, but it's done in a way that you can enjoy it.

On other hand, you might think that your life needs to progress at a very quick rate. You may feel that starting your own business is the only way to advance that quickly. You might spend long hours at work, and enjoy pushing yourself to the limits.

For instance, you may decide that you want to get a college degree. You know it'll take four years and you have certain requirements for graduation.

You can then decide how many classes each year need to be aimed towards your degree, and how many can be for fun. You can take some classes that interest you but aren't related to your career. You might take fewer classes to get more time in with friends or other activities.

Is either of these the right choice? Can they both be? This very much hinges on what you believe is an appropriate rate of progress. And this in turn hinges on a couple of things. The advancement in life provides a number of values to you. The first is that it provides security over the long term. By putting yourself in a constantly improving situation, you create a larger and larger barrier between you and misfortune. On the other hand, a slow rate of progress will not protect you against adversity.

36 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

Another factor is that you're exposed to new situations and conditions. You constantly learn and adapt, and life keeps interesting. A fast rate of progress will provide newer situations and changes will happen quickly. This can be great if you get bored easily. Likewise, a slower rate of progress is good if sudden changes cause you undue stress. By having your changes be more gradual, you can still improve yourself without the accompanying pressure.

Another reason to pick a faster rate of progress is that it is progress. By advancing in your career or growing as a person, you have access to more choices. By advancing in a high paying job, you're better able to enjoy the spare time you have. If you're poor and have a week off, you might need to sit around the house or look for other low-cost entertainment. If you're rich, you can take the week off to go to Maui, stay in a nice hotel, and eat great food.

Sanity Check How about a sanity [3] check? The point of philosophy is often to identify things that we already know or do, making them explicit so we can understand them. Since we already manage to make pretty reasonable choices between the future and the present, we should be able to elements of these ideas in our own actions. So does anyone actually do this kind of thing?

Of course. What you often see is someone who decides at some point that his life isn't what he wants it to be. He may have decided his rate of progress was too fast or too slow. In one case, he may decide that he's not accomplishing enough in life. He's stuck in a dead-end job, he doesn't feel like he has enough options, and he just doesn't seem to be able to get ahead. He doesn't feel he's progressing fast enough. Often he'll remedy this by spending more time at work, taking classes to better develop his skill set, and spending less time going out with friends.

Another type of person is the over-worker, who wakes up to realize that he's letting life pass him by. Sometimes this is just a focus on the wrong values, but sometimes it's a realization that he's not enjoying himself enough. To remedy it, he may take an extended vacation, take up a hobby, make a policy to leave work promptly at 5pm, and whatever else is necessary to shift his priorities a little.

Dec.6, 2015

So it seems clear that people understand the concept of rate of progress. They may not think about it in those same terms, but they do look at their lives in that way. And it's an effective way of balancing future and present wants.

Once you have an idea of how much you want to accomplish over a period of time, you can pace yourself. You don't have to feel guilty about taking vacations because you've already factored them into your schedule. You can take time to really push yourself to get a job done, and know that you'll be able to relax at the end of the day.

Enjoy Life So is there a right answer for how to choose between these future and present values? Obviously there are some instances that just don't make any sense at all. Spending all your time working for the future while not leaving yourself time to enjoy the present is pointless, as is partying all the time and never getting anywhere in life. Every activity has its utility, which lasts for a certain period of time.

The important thing to remember is that there is no one right answer for everyone. You can't deductively prove what is the correct rate of progress. It depends a lot on your personal context. Some rates of progress are too fast or too slow. Sometimes you have opportunities present themselves that you might not have at other times.

Also, the answer can change over time. Many people recognize that working hard at the beginning of your life or career has a huge payoff compared to working hard later. There can be diminishing return on your efforts as you get older. So it may make sense to push very hard early on in life, and lessen your rate of progress later, enjoying the fruits of your previous actions.

Life is supposed to be enjoyed. You have to determine for yourself what that requires. Looking at your life as a totality can help you to make good decisions by understanding the consequences of the choices. By seeing your life as a progression from the past and into the future, you provide the common standard by which you can weigh alternatives.

Ethics can provide you abstract principles to guide your life, but you have to learn to apply them to your own life.

37 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 29 期 – 用计划迎接未来

本文原载于: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Time_and_Value.shtml 文章原名为： Time and Value

Dec.6, 2015

Life Lessons From The Movie ‘The Martian’ - Trials Can Happen At Any Time

[1] epistemology (noun): The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion 知识论 [2] whim (noun): A sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained 一时的兴致; 突然的念头 [3] sanity (noun): The ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health 心智健康; 通情达理 推荐栏目：

Even at the height of your success you can be hit by the worst trial of your life.In the movie, Wattney is halfway through a manned mission to Mars when everything goes wrong and he’s stranded. He’s obviously done everything right – he’s an astronaut, a scientist, highly intelligent, and squeaky-clean enough to make the astronaut grade for a manned mission to Mars.

Even when the emergency event happens, it neither the fault of the commander, crew, or Wattney himself – it’s just a stroke of bad luck.

Regardless of where you are, what you’ve achieved, or how far you’ve come in life, stay grounded. Life changes in an instant, for the good and the bad, and often you will have no way to stop or control it.

- Trials Will End Just As Suddenly As They Began From almost beginning to end, The Martian covers Wattney’s trial time on Mars, and the movie basically ends in a moment when he hugs the other crew members and jokes with them. That’s it – after nearly two years of survival and hard work, in that one little hug and anticlimactic moment, Wattney’s journey was over.

The Martian, which was released on Oct. 2015, could tell us a few things: How to set plans and manage risks during tough conditions in limited time; How to set long-term and higher level goals, given that efficient operation of public utilities has been taken for granted; Technologies need to be utilized for the health and wellbeing of people; Friendship, care and love in a new context. 目标，时间，计划与意义，组成了该影片的主题。在火星上，他的呼吸声总是 那么急促而沉重——对于每个细小的举动，他都可能会付出巨大代价。他的不 凡经历让我们意识到，其实我们每个人都踏在火星的土地上。

When you’re in a life trial, you can often remember a moment where it started – where things just started going wrong. If this isn’t your first trial then you’ll also likely remember a moment when the trial turned and everything in your life just changed for the better.

From birth to death, beginnings to ends, life always changes in a single instant. We spend our moments in between preparing for little life moments in which our world will be irrevocably changed.

As hard as your lessons have been, as hard as your trial was, there will come a moment when it’s over – it’s just finished and done. Life always changes in an instant – and your life can too. 本文原载于: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/12/16/12-life-lessonsfrom-the-movie-the-martian/ 38 | P a g e

西媒导读 第 30 期 – 我们所需要的工作文化 导读：在澳洲工作当中，很明显的感觉便是融洽的人际关系——人与人之间处 理问题，总是力求用成熟而得当的方式。而在融洽关系的背后，其实总是有 Code of Conduct 来支持和限制的。 不论是在大学，公司，还是政府机构，他们都会为自己量身订做一套 Code of Conduct——它其实是简单而细腻的规则，对可能发生的情况对症下药。每个 人不论职务级别高低，都需要共同遵照，而不是凭借权力或私欲而为。可以 说，设计好完善的 Code of Conduct，并严格遵照，公司一般会有很棒很赞的工 作文化。 与每天讲述抽象的道理相比，Code of Conduct 显得非常简单、实用而有效。

Code of Conduct – Essential Energy Essential Energy is committed to fostering a workplace culture that delivers the highest standards of safety, respect, performance and integrity for employees and the customers and communities we serve.

Maintaining these standards means we must all conduct ourselves in a way that demonstrates ethical behaviour as we go about our work.

Essential Energy’s Code of Conduct aims to set out a common understanding of our corporate values and the kind of behaviour expected of us. Along with legislation and policies, it governs what we say and don’t say; what we do and don’t do.

The Code does not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of what to do in every aspect of our work. Instead, it provides an ethical framework that will help each of us to make the right choice when faced with an ethical issue. It should be read in conjunction with Essential Energy policies and procedures.

Occasionally, our corporate values and decisions may be challenged in the course of our work. When this happens, it is important to think carefully about our choices and their possible consequences and, of course, refer to the guidance provided in our Code of Conduct.

We encourage you to take the time to read the Code and discuss how it applies to your work with your colleagues and manager.

Dec.30, 2015

Our Values Working at Essential Energy requires our employees to understand and support our corporate values. These five values and their associated behaviours are the basis for everything we do.

Safety excellence - Put safety as your number one priority - Do not participate in unsafe acts, and challenge unsafe behaviours - Think before you act - Lead by example - Take responsibility for the health and safety of yourself and others Respect for people - Treat all people with respect, dignity, fairness and equity - Demonstrate co-operation, trust and support in the workplace - Practise open, two-way communication Customer and community focus - Deliver value and reliable service to our customers and communities - Use resources responsibly and efficiently - Be environmentally and socially responsible Continuous improvement - Look for safer and better ways to do your job - Improve our financial performance - Support innovation to add value to our business Act with integrity - Act honestly and ethically in everything you do - Be accountable and own your actions - Follow the rules and speak up. 了解更多详情请登录： https://www.essentialenergy.com.au/asset/cms/pdf/policies/Code-of-Conduct.pdf 39 | P a g e

The Mentality Carrier 2015 | Sydney| Australia

Email: mentality.carrier@outlook.com Official Page: http://issuu.com/mentality.carrier