Chapter 25 24. To Xiao Han

Mr. Xiao Han: Hello! We had a very happy chat that day, and when I came back, I looked for articles by you and Mr. Zhang Hui.When I read "Saints and Liberals", I had some thoughts and touched some of my long-standing confusion. Now I will pass on the notes to you. Please criticize when you are free. 1. Don't expect Havel to be produced in a land that does not produce Kundera.Where there is no liberal atmosphere, there are two types of people who die for their beliefs: "meat bombs" and traitors.There are people with benevolence, people with lofty ideals, and tough bones, and their ideological quality and belief orientation can hardly be compared with Hashi.

But in the land where Javier has not been produced, Kundera has to be counted on, otherwise there is no hope.As we said that day: freedom of speech, in particular, is paramount. 2. Therefore, what matters is not whether you have faith and saints, but what kind of faith you have and saints for what.Strauss said this: culture is everywhere, but civilization is not everywhere.This logic should also apply to faith and saints.Terrorism and despotism are no worse than saints in terms of firmness, presumably because they have a strong source of spiritual nourishment.We said the other day that the word "spirit" has been corrupted, not sure what to raise.Especially the "spirit" that belittles thought is most likely to be hollowed out by fashion, so empty that there is nothing in it, and then everything can be.

3. I agree with you about Kun and Ha, they are not in opposing positions.Relegation to Kunyangha may be what should be done in a free land, but in other places, I am afraid that I will reap beans if I grow melons.I especially agree with the last sentence of your article: "We can only motivate ourselves to be Castellio, but we have no right to ask others to be the paving stones of freedom." 4. What do you think of hesitation and weakness?Does that have to be bad manners?Or: Perseverance and death-defying attitude must be good qualities?Is the foundation of the saints, or the first of "spiritual nourishment"?

For example, weakness, in my opinion, one reason is not wanting to be tortured, the second reason is not wanting relatives to be tortured, and the third reason is not wanting all innocent people to be tortured.Isn't this right and good?Besides hesitation, all thoughts must begin with hesitation, not firmness (doubt).Only at the end of the continuous exploration of thought can there be good faith, or spirit. ——Of course, people who make excuses for their hesitation and weakness will also say the same, but this does not mean that hesitation and weakness are necessarily bad. 5. I often think, how do people hear the voice of God?Ordinary people who don't have the chance to listen to God's order in person, how can they distinguish which is said by man and which is said by God?I was perplexed by this.It wasn't until I read some books by Mr. Liu Xiaofeng, "Zero Degree of Writing" and "Natural Correctness", etc., that I realized something; and then I understood why God answered Job in that way.Only by returning to the starting point of life, and returning to the life situation where human transmission and non-transmission are indisputable, can we hear the voice of God.What was the initial situation of Adam, Eve or man?It is separation, loneliness, mutual search and longing for reunion.Of course, this is not the whole of love, but can this be regarded as God's hint of love?The starting point is emotion, not aspiration.Aspirations can be passed on from person to person, they can be value judgments made by people on behalf of God, and they can go anywhere.But emotion, or people's mutual expectation, is a fact that is passed on from person to person or not.

6. This brings us to the deception of the snake.Temptation means that people are tempted to become gods; deception means that it is impossible for people to become gods.Those who want to be gods but cannot actually become gods pretend to be the good and evil that gods say, so the "terror" and "tyranny" (and the madness of material desire) have a reasonable and legal spirit Yangyuan. 7. I worry that the above text has been a bit ostentatious.You are an expert in this field.I have always been in awe of scholars, it is true.Because I am more and more in favor of "talk less about doctrines and study more problems".The reason why I want to say the above-mentioned omissions or self-evident words is really to pave the way for many difficult problems below, to find reasons, and maybe even—hopefully not—to make excuses.

8. Let’s just say it: the traitor is the person in the world who makes me sympathize and have nightmares the most.The direct reason is: I know I am weak, and I am worried that things will be difficult to handle once the enemy captures me.Be a hero, I'm afraid you won't be able to bear it, but if you don't become a hero, you will become a traitor, that's even more terrifying.The enemy is cruel, but "our own people" are not kind at all, and the difficulty lies in the two ends.If I can be a hero, I can be a hero, and if I can’t be a hero, I can be nothing, then my nightmare will be gone.A disabled person wrote a poem: "No matter how much you lose with your mother, there will be prizes." This poem often warms me and moves me.But there is no mother behind the traitor, there are enemies in front of him and behind him!There are such people in the world, but few people think about them; or when they think about it in private, they pinch their own legs like a nightmare, fortunately it happened to be someone else.

9. So I don't think well: Does a person who is afraid of death, pain, and torture also have ideals and beliefs? I don't think so: Is a weak person with good faith only worthy of being a monk?Otherwise, if there is a mistake, do you have to choose between a saint and a traitor? I can't figure it out: once a weak person with lofty ideals who doesn't want to be a monk is caught, should he be shot in the chest, or should he be stabbed in the back?What's more, things are far from simple. For example: a saint can decide to suffer punishment and die for himself, does he also have the right to make the same choice for his relatives?If not, he might become a traitor; if so, who gave him this right?Because he is a saint, or because he is going to be a saint?

10. I remember that Hashi wrote about his experience of being beaten up in front of a bar. After weighing the pros and cons, he still retreated.This made me breathe a sigh of relief.Of course, I know that this tone is more of an excuse for myself, and it is by no means the same as Hashi's retreat.I also know: Don't say that my family members are troubled, even if I go to suffer the torture alone, I'm afraid I still don't wish it. For this, I have been ashamed for many years, confused for many years, and thankful for many years.Rejoicing is obviously not enough, and at the same time praising the saints seems not enough to remedy.If the devil and the saints have forgotten that the traitor is also a human being, there must be something else in this phenomenon.

[Note: The traitors in this article only refer to those who submit to violence, and do not include the category of doing bad things to others for the sake of glory and wealth. ] 11. I even thought: Is someone who disregards the suffering and life and death of his relatives still worthy of being a saint?Of course, doing the opposite is certainly not enough.Looking at it this way, being a saint requires a bit of luck: first, don’t let the enemy catch you; second, don’t let the enemy be too cruel; third, you’d better die before you finally can’t stand the torture , or suddenly you can escape from prison. ——Cough, why is this question becoming more and more boring?

Then change the way of thinking: Is a person who would rather be reviled through the ages so that his relatives will not be tortured, be closer to a saint?Even if it is, it is obviously far from the image of a saint in our hearts. Then change another way of thinking: If under any circumstances, "our own people" don't regard "our own people" as traitors, is that okay?If the enemy doesn't treat people as human beings, we can't ruthlessly drive "our own people" to a desperate situation, how about it?It still doesn't seem to work.Because the enemy is not merciless, if "our people" are wiped out, what will happen to our cause?

So it seems to be true: where there is no broad base of liberalism—such as freedom of faith and speech—the saints have a dilemma.So the simultaneous coexistence of Kundera and Havel, is it accidental or inevitable? So there is another thought: what kind of career is "our business"?Is it for "our people" to become stronger, or is it for the sake that everyone in the world is "our own people"?To use an old saying: Is it the dictatorship of a certain person, or "the world is united", "freedom and fraternity"?Saints can only appear in the latter ideological atmosphere, right?Such as Gandhi, such as Martin Luther King, such as Mandela and Tutu, such as their ideas and propositions. 12. Just saw a book by Tutu: "No Future Without Forgiveness".The title alone made me understand many things.Don't say it so big, it's like a small group of people. After getting along for a long time, friction, conflicts and grievances are inevitable. If you want to get along-there is a future, and it is unthinkable without forgiveness.What's more, how many grievances and grievances have been accumulated by human beings for thousands of years!It may be possible to explain everything clearly. Reflection as reflection and confession as repentance are naturally more necessary, but if you must retaliate or "don't forget", then there must be no future. But the question immediately arises again: Is it considered forgiveness to ignore the tragedies of history?of course not.But why not?What should one forgive, punish, guard against, forget and not forget?This is not only strong enough to be competent, but also requires a strong source of spiritual nourishment, but also a deep source of ideological nourishment. 13. Like the previous saints, Havel's greatness lies in his thoughts and ideas.Harder must not have tried to be a saint.The saints are definitely not in the publicity of doctrines, but mostly in the study of problems.So I especially respect scholars and believe in those who are buried in problems.If I say that Liu Xiaofeng and Chen Jiaying are close to saints, I may be doing a disservice, but in my opinion, their work is exactly the work of being holy and producing holy.Thousands of years of righteous indignation and waving of doctrine have called on people to be confused, belittle ideas, and neglect problems. Individuals will belittle reason and laugh at philosophy. 14. Rationality, in current China, has at least two meanings: one means sticking to the rules and not going beyond the threshold; the other means thinking and facing all problems;So I believe that no matter what happens, the first step must be honesty (no wonder the education in the House of Kindness is honesty first), otherwise faith will be corrupted like "spirit" to nothing or everything can be .I suddenly thought: In fact, any beautiful word can be corrupted unless it contains honest thinking. Honesty is really not easy to do.The reason why I admire Wang Shuo is because he dares to go against the will of the public honestly.I have actually said many of his words in my heart, but I dare not make them public.That made me read a passage from Bloom that boils down to this: Are you for the people, or are you for the people? ——Such logic abounds: Are you for the truth, or are you for possession of the truth?Do you want to talk about it, or do you want to talk about it?Do you believe in such a wonderful, or chasing the wonderful and so? ... 15. So those who are weak like me take a step back: If you can't be 100% open and honest, at least try to be 100% privately honest.Later I discovered that this may be the seed of freedom in the unfreedom, the ability to act when it is difficult to act, a possibility of the impossible, the burial of reality in the depths of unreality, or the honest bottom line that the weak cannot retreat. —but that might be a little ridiculous: who knows where you retreated?Who knows where you will end up retreating? It's a problem, and it's not a problem just because you know it's a problem. Thank you for your hospitality that day.When you are free and interested, you can come to my house to chat. Regards to your lady.Greetings Zhang Hui. Shi Tiesheng 2003/8/24