Wang Jian hurried back to the hall.

Long Yifei didn't look at him, but he moved away a little and let Wang Jian sit beside him.

At the same time, the hand under the low table patted and touched it soothingly.

Wang Jian did see the girl of the Bai family, and he slowly returned after a long time.

didn't seem to look at Wang Jian, but Long Yifei smiled kindly.

Of course, it was just a smile.

Wang Jian looked over, his eyes kept staring at her, and the meaning was very simple: "The enemy has a conspiracy, there is a big conspiracy, and you choose to do nothing?"

Long Yifei seemed to be very calm.

Is there a conspiracy.

Conspiracy is similar to conspiracy, which is a strategy to achieve a certain goal. The so-called conspiracy is to set a trap and create something out of nothing. Among them, it depends on whether the trap you set is clever or not. But no matter how clever the trap is, it is the fatal wound of the conspiracy. As long as people see through it, this conspiracy is worthless. Therefore, there are flaws in the conspiracy. And Yang Mou is different, Yang Mou is a ploy that puts everything in front of you. It has no privacy, no secrets. It's transparent almost everything, so it's not flawed. The implementer only needs to grasp the direction. It can be said that it is taking advantage of the situation to promote all inevitable development and achieve its own goals. It's like a flood bursting its banks, everyone knows that people will die, but those who stand in front of it still have to die, and they can't walk.

Conspiracy means that the other party is led to make a recognized mistake by lying based on facts, secretly planning and employing non-compliant, illegal, and unethical strategies.

The most important aspect of the conspiracy should be that it is immoral, and is generally despised by the vast majority of the public.

One cannot blindly destroy one's moat because of morality, nobility or so-called universal values. It is only because this homeostasis conflicts with the most common laws of reality and is naturally unstable, so it is necessary to find the transition to the next more stable ecology as soon as possible. For example, because of sincerity and not accounting, let yourself suffer, because you want to be friends and like friends to disclose industry secrets, because you want to be responsible for the employee and provide the best possible treatment, to maintain his fastest growth (we are all passers-by of the company, employee wages should be in a reasonable range, not an emotional range), because of the responsibility to the customer and have the opportunity to press the money without depositing even if their own capital chain is tight, these practices are not necessarily right

Conspiracy should be the transition from the current stable impotence to the next more stable impotence for the future (sacrificing partial justice for the great justice and sacrificing temporary justice for the final justice). The conspiracy is a temporary steady state under the premise that the public knows the interests of all parties (cooperative equilibrium), and the conspiracy implies that some people do not know, and the minority (or even only themselves) know the truth under the premise of temporary steady state, when the transition is not completed, the hidden truth is known to the public, and the temporary steady state will develop sharply to the next steady state, that is, the conspiracy is exposed, and the original goal is bankrupt, and the cost is huge. But if the transition is successful, it is an excellent cover, and the cost will be much lower than the whole process, and the conspiracy can often be kept secret. That's why it always feels like something is missing when looking at those who have succeeded, and he's hiding the conspiracy that has already completed the transition and doesn't need to be mentioned.

The first thing to understand is the question of strategic conspiracy and conspiracy. Conspiracy is like the hole cards in a poker game, which must not be seen through by the opponent, but basically everyone can understand if it is really turned over. Yangmou is like a falling piece in Go, every move is above board and known to the world, but there are always very few people who can really understand the meaning of such a fall. Just because everyone can understand it, it is necessary to keep it secret. And those that you don't understand when they are revealed, you can not keep them secret. In the actual international strategy, there are elements of conspiracy and conspiracy. Conspiracy is mostly about motives and means, i.e., why exactly you are doing it, and what means you will use to do it. Yang conspiracy is related to what to do, that is, how to find the point of concrete action between the end and the means. The advantage of the conspiracy is that it can be taken by surprise and attacked unprepared, but the disadvantage is that it is difficult to fully mobilize, which limits the initiative of the grassroots and even more restricts the possibility of discussion and improvement. The result is very likely to be that two or three people have made one in the secret room, or they think they are clever but are actually stupid, or they are really clever but cannot be understood and echoed by the Chinese people. This is still the situation of two or three people in the temple, if these two or three people are not above the temple, but whispering in a secret room far away from the rivers and lakes, they may completely degenerate into unknown self-entertainment. The shortcomings of the conspiracy are the advantages of the conspiracy, and the advantages of the conspiracy are also the shortcomings of the conspiracy.

In any country, only those who can see the future can take the lead. However, these people who have insight into the future and take the lead are often far away. Some people start a business in a garage, some people live in seclusion in Sanjia Village, some people sing and sing on the streets of the city, and some people struggle to survive in ordinary alleys. Unfortunately, the rivers and lakes are always characterized by a mixture of dragons and snakes, mud and sand, and there are far more snakes than dragons. Compared with the average quality, the temple people are always better than the people of the rivers and lakes, and they are far better. But compared to the highest value in a specific field, it is often that the people of the rivers and lakes are better than the people of the temple, and they are better than the people. The question arises, how can we make the very small number of dragons and phoenixes in the rivers and lakes stand out from the crowd of charlatans? Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are only the bottom line, and more importantly, it is necessary to form a complete set of revolving door mechanisms for the use of talents. Rather than thinking that they are clever in the dark, cronyism. Therefore, conspiracy theories often become a fig leaf for the incompetent, just as the design of the yang scheme is always the sword of the strong.

Conspiracy is to use some information you don't know or create some illusions to achieve his goals, once you know this information or see through the illusion, the conspiracy will fail. Yang conspiracy is that all information is placed on the surface and there is no illusion, just like playing chess, he generals, you must be a soldier, all your actions and behaviors are in the calculations of others, and you are also aware of this fact, but you have to follow his ideas to do it.

Is this a pure conspiracy?

Or rather, is there a real indecision?

Is there really a way of thinking about the desperate game between one group of forces against another?

No interest group would act that way.

In a real country, there must be people with different kinds of thinking, even if they are originally one kind of thinking, they will automatically divide into many forces because of other differences, and start to fight among themselves.

Everyone originally ate salty tofu brains, and formed a country called salty tofu brains to deal with the cheap people of sweet tofu brains.

But after a long time, after all, the cheap people of sweet tofu brains are far abroad, and most of the people who stumble in China are their own people.

As a result, the population is gradually diverging.

What I like to drink is braised tofu brain with fresh mutton slices and a good soup, the slut actually likes beef bones, and adds more soy sauce, it's just a big rebellion, kill that heretic!

Guess what, there are three people here, the salty tofu brain country, the sweet tofu brain country, and the millet porridge country, who hates each other the most with whom?

In all probability, it is the people of the two tofu brain countries who hate each other, and they are desperately trying to win over the millet porridge country.

A, B, C, three people, A and B both like football, C likes basketball, but it just so happens that the team A and B support are rivals - do you guess A and B have a bigger conflict, or is it with C?

In the same way, within China, there are not a few people who have different ideas.

There are those who advocate the establishment of a world empire, through the crusade against the reactionary regimes of neighboring countries that oppose human rights, so as to obtain the resources of those small countries and gather to fight against the monsters.

There are those who advocate escaping to the secret realm.

There are those who kneel and lick in the hope of getting the slightest possibility of the secret realm without killing.

Anyway, that's how complex humans are.

So, is there really no other mind in the inner part of the secret realm?

Wang Jian didn't believe it.

Even if the secret realm is an absolute dictatorship, and its totalitarian attributes are off the charts, it has to be said.

Even if it's a family, there will be disagreements.

In my thinking, morality is the result of the distribution of benefits, and then it reacts to simplifying the distribution of benefits. In nature, the law of the jungle eats the strong, and seeing a pregnant doe can't run fast and several lions go up to eat it, this will not cause moral unhappiness at all.

And in the human senses, there was once a very interesting proposition, why do people who eat pork think that eating dog meat is immoral? Because many people have established a sense of communication with dogs, dogs bring stronger emotional comfort to most people than pigs, so when other people are eating dogs, this kind of generational emotion appears, and their own emotional destruction is actually a kind of damage to interests, and in order to maintain their emotions to continue to be rational and peaceful to maintain life control, we use personal trial procedures to judge each other, in order to achieve justice and pleasure to make up for emotional destruction.

One positive and one negative, safeguard their own interests. Because the person who cuts the queue loses his time, the person who smokes harms his health, and the person who splits his leg insults his emotional trust and even wealth.

Man, through different interest groups, has developed many moral values. The more interests benefit from and for longer periods of time, the stronger this morality becomes.

That's why incest was not only moral, but even glorious. Because the rich and powerful parties prefer blood marriage to protect each other's interests, and now the risk of childbirth increases, and the interests of blood relatives are gradually replaced by commercial interests, and the loss is greater than the benefit, so incest is immoral.

On the other hand, once morality is strong, the distribution of interests is convenient, because we can go directly without asking why, and solid morality is like a green channel for the distribution of interests, simplifying a lot of processing, morality gives the overall majesty of the individual interest group, so that individuals can simplify the time when fighting for interests, and give a part of the spiritual support that may be exaggerated.

There will also be times when morality contradicts each other, is it the immorality of the chengguan who does not give food to the mouth, or the immorality of the street vendors who occupy unclean land? Everyone will make different judgments according to their own circumstances, and even different judgments at different times. Because we are divided into many interest groups. Therefore, what supports positive interpersonal relationships is, in the final analysis, whether we have the same goals and belong to the same interest group.

At the heart of utilitarianism is that as long as the common good is maximized, he is the most ethical. Why? Because at the end of the day, the purpose of our life is to pursue happiness.

To give an example: what happens when the interests of a group of people and the interests of individuals conflict? The utilitarian answer is yes, but then to Kant, the utilitarian is criticized for being useless, and the reason is that the utilitarian only sees the result of the matter and ignores the motive.

The most famous of these is Kant's predicative imperative, which states: "Whatever you do, you should always make it possible that the criterion by which your will is guided will always and at the same time become a universal principle of legislation" (Critique of Practical Reason, p. 30). Kant also introduced a practical principle, that your actions should be regarded equally as ends in your personality and in other people's personalities, and that you can never be seen only as a means. What do you mean?

For example, if you donate money to the disaster area, if you want to help others, you are moral in Kant's view, because the purpose of your donation is to donate money itself. If you do not aim for this purpose, but take the opportunity to increase the fame of yourself or your company, it is immoral, because here you are using the people in the disaster area as a tool for your fame, not an end. But in the eyes of utilitarians, it doesn't matter what your purpose is, your result is to maximize the benefits of the well-being of the whole society, so you are moral. From this point of view, Kant has no doubt that he is looking at the problem from a higher point.

Finally, to answer your question, which has a greater impact on interpersonal relationships, morality or interests? In China, when utilitarians are everywhere, of course, interests have a greater impact, and I have seen many people who hold the idea of "dialecticism", and they basically judge the right and wrong of a thing, basically centering on their own interests, rather than morality itself.

For example, if you also demolish a house and demolish someone else's house, you will say that "the government is planning the city, and of course the individual will have to give in." Once the house is demolished, the banner of "private land is inviolable" will be held high.

They think that they are looking at the problem dialectically, but in fact it is not dialectical at all, but centered on self-interest. In addition, this one has a lot to do with the circle you are in. The higher the level of education, the wider and deeper the reading, and usually the more idealistic feelings, such a circle has a greater impact on interpersonal relationships.

But in any case, we can see that the general direction of the world is still moving in the direction of pure morality, in the past we saw a lot of companies that survived by cheating, but now they are basically dead, and those who remain are some companies that rely on brand and popularity to do things in a real way.