浩然之氣

《孟子》講「浩然之氣」係令我發現原來儒家傳統唔係純粹 on9 嘅契機之一。

「敢問何謂浩然之氣？」

曰：「難言也。其為氣也，至大至剛，以直養而無害，則塞于天地之閒。其為氣也，配義與道；無是，餒也。是集義所生者，非義襲而取之也。行有不慊於心，則餒矣。我故曰，告子未嘗知義，以其外之也。必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。無若宋人然：宋人有閔其苗之不長而揠之者，芒芒然歸。謂其人曰：『今日病矣，予助苗長矣。』其子趨而往視之，苗則槁矣。天下之不助苗長者寡矣。以為無益而舍之者，不耘苗者也；助之長者，揠苗者也。非徒無益，而又害之。」

不過嗰段字唔太易明，然後後面原來係搭單附送咗「拔苗助長」嘅故仔。

由於花咗少少時間嘗試理解，喺度寫返心得同未決之疑

 「必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。」

呢句其實好撚緊要，完全係人類存在於宇宙嘅奧義之一。道家叫做「無為」，new age 叫做 manifestation。 點樣令到一件事發生？孟子話：唔好放低佢，但又唔好助長。

「正」可能係通「征」。

似乎朱子語類有詳細解釋：

「必有事焉，而勿正心」，此言「正心」，自與大學語脈不同。此「正」字是期待其效之意。「仁者先難而後獲」。正心是先獲意思，先獲是先有求獲之心。古人自有這般語。公羊傳云：「師出不正反，戰不正勝。」此「正」字，與孟子說「正心」之「正」一般。言師出不可必期其反，戰不可必期其勝也。賀孫

問「必有事焉而勿正」之義。曰：「正，猶等待之意。趙岐解云：『不可望其福。』雖說意粗了，其文義卻不錯。此正如『師出不正反，戰不正勝』之『正』。古人用字之意如此，言但當從事於此，而勿便等待其效之意。」或問：「此便是助長否？」曰：「『正』，未是助長，待其效而不得，則漸漸助之長矣。譬之栽木，初栽即是望其長，望之之久而不如意，則揠苗矣！明道曰『下言之漸重』，此言卻是。」後因論「仁者先難而後獲」，洽曰：「先解『勿正』字，頗有後獲之意。」曰：「頗有此意。」曰：「如此解，則於用工處儘有條理。」曰：「聖賢之言，條理精密，往往如此。但看得不切，錯認了他文義，則并與其意而失之耳。」洽

但呢件事同浩然之氣究竟有咩關係？！？ 諗唔通。 所以後世啲人可以將「拔苗助長」呢樣嘢當係孩童故事咁講，但從來都唔會提半句「浩然之氣」⋯ 大家都諗唔透有乜撚嘢關係。

另外呢度嘅「義」雖然理論上係「魚與熊掌，捨生取義」嘅「義」，但你當成「意義」咁理解都係OK嘅。告子作為一個徹頭徹尾嘅 relativist (eg. 性猶湍水也)，自然冇內置嘅「義」(morals ~= meaning ~= motivations)，冇 compass 冇動力，自然擺爛 (i.e. 餒)。但一個 fundamental relativist 確實可以不動心。

講起不動心，「必有事焉而勿正，心勿忘，勿助長也。」  應該係講緊不動心啩。咁就好 make sense。有樣嘢你好著緊嘅，點樣不動心？孟子嘅講法係勿征心、勿忘、勿助長。 而告子就根本覺得咩都冇所謂，所以不動心，雖然唔動心但冇浩然之氣。

但始終令人好 frustrate[d] 嘅係，一講到 meaning (義), will (必) 同 stillness (不動心) 嗰陣，啲經典就同我(哋)一齊 hang 機，講得到喉唔到肺。所以我一開始先話呢句關乎「人類存在於宇宙嘅奧義之一」⋯⋯ 但一係我未明，一係個答案仍然係不能以言語描述。

PS: 後來睇返，個關係其實係喺度嘅。心動就會行動(助長)，行動就會壞事。所以孟子講返點樣等啲嘢自然搞掂，唔好亂咁嚟自己郁手搞禍啲嘢。而唔助長嘅方法就係不動心。 呢種態度幾近道家，但修行嘅道理萬法不離其中，所以講起個人修行，都唯有係咁。

Forgetting

It seems recently I am starting to forget what I wrote.

Sometimes I re-read my writings and have no idea what the fuck I was trying to say. (Generally I eventually recall most of it, but still...)

The missing link in Bayes' Theorem

Bayes' Theorem implies that if you have sufficiently strong priors, evidence to the contrary does not matter. It is, sort of a "proof" (the irony of this word in this context is not lost on yours truly) of "whatever you believe is true, is true".

But where's the catch? What makes the argument sound so flimsy?

It just occurred to me what the problem is -- the assumption that "death" is real.

Our idea of objective truth is that it is dictated and judged by "death" and "death" alone.

The only way to finally determine whether somebody is delusional or not is whether they die while following their beliefs. Anything else seems to be a matter of opinion, where upon civilized people agree to disagree.

But what if they don't die? If the idea of death is truly illusional, *then* we must accept, in a kind of collegial spirit, that all opinions held by fellow souls must be equally valid. To denounce anyone's opinion is to curse with death -- ineffective of course, but to the accurser it is.

New Loans to cover old loans

In Hong Kong, it's well known that there is a cap on the interest (48%) one can charge for loans per Money Lender's Ordinance.

Now let's say Mr. X needs $100.  He has an apartment that is valued at approx $1000. He takes a $100 loan from an unscrupulous money lender, repayable over 10 years, at 20% p.a. secured against the apartment. The loan contains a clause that says if the borrower defaults on any payment, the whole loan including future interests would be immediately payable.

Now, the kind of person who'd take a loan from "money lenders" at 20% interest instead of "banks" is the kind who's not particularly creditworthy. So, almost inevitably, Mr. X fails to make a payment towards the loan, let's say 2 years later.

So, in the first year principle+interest=$100+$20,  let's say repayment is $30

second year, principle+interest=$90+18, let's say $30 is repaid as well
after the second year, principle is $78

If Mr. X defaults at this point, the remaining interest (8 years) is $78 * 20% * 8 = 124.8, so Mr. X is liable for $78+124.8 = $202.

Mr. X still has an apartment that is valued at $1000, and he doesn't want to lose it, so the money lenders suggest Mr. X to take out another $202 loan to cover the original loan. It's more risky for the lenders, so interest rate is now 30%.

Mr. X obviously still has to repay the loan, and given that he couldn't repay the original $100 loan to begin with, he struggles to repay a $200 loan. After a couple months, he fails to make a payment on time again. This time he's liable for paying $750 (the principle plus 30% interest). The money lender makes an application to court to recover $750 from Mr X, who eventually has to sell his apartment to repay the outstanding amount.

So, in less than 3 years time, the money lender lends out $100 and has an "effective" return of almost $800+

If you take a broader view, that's pretty much a 200% effective interest rate...

Is this even legal? I pondered this question when I first heard of such stories.

And apparently it is:

HONG KONG SAI KUNG NGONG WO RESORT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED（香港西貢昂窩渡假村發展有限公司）V. TOTALCORP (NOMINEES) LIMITED [2022] HKCFA 28

""" if the parties agree that money advanced on a fresh loan on new terms will be used to pay off an old loan, they can give effect to the transaction by set-off without having to pay over the money and then take it back. The agreement can be taken at face value. But there is nothing in any of these cases to suggest that if the parties agree to vary the terms of a loan, by extending the term or changing the rate of interest, that must count as entering into a new loan. In either case, the law gives effect to what, as a matter of construction, appears to have been the intention of the parties evinced by the language they have used. If it is expressed to be a new loan, it is treated as a new loan, notwithstanding that the money was used to pay off an old loan. If it varies the terms of an old loan, the agreement will vary the terms without creating a new loan. """

In the judgment, it seems valid for lenders/borrowers to  create a new loan contract where before which the effective interest rate might exceed the statutory limit, it would not have been exceeded afterwards.

The case doesn't directly touch upon the issue I mentioned, but if it's allowed to create a new loan to cover an old loan and the legality of the new loan only rests on the terms of the new loan without reference to the old, then I don't see why the situation above would be illegal.

遞歸式模擬

*早排同朋友吹水，對話大致如下

A: 世界局勢變幻不定，究竟點先可以知會發生咩事呢？

B: 而家科技倡明，行 simulation 咪得囉。

A: 但如果個 simulation 入面啲人都打算行 simulation 咁點算？

B: 咁無窮無盡㗎喎 👻 

(*按：我唔記得同exactly邊個同幾時。應該都係分靈體之一)

我個問題係：點樣避免呢個問題？係咪可以模擬一個唔識整模擬嘅世界出嚟？

山西經

「河水出焉，而南流東注于無達」

已知崑崙 = Khum (Khufu)

佢話「河水注于無達」就肯定知係地中海

一查 The Ancient Egyptians called the Mediterranean Wadj-wr/Wadj-Wer/Wadj-Ur

咁啱又啱音...