I have mixed feelings about writing down the following things, and in fact I am hesitant to put them on or not, after all, the "reader" of the starting point has an unusual obsession with the cleanliness of the layout.

This leads me to the first point of how to interpret my article: be sure to pay attention to my punctuation "".

Usually the things that are marked in quotation marks are worth a little bit of brainstorming, such as the reader marked by quotation marks--- I think that many people who scan the text at the starting point are real consumers.

For example, in the body of the previous chapter, I used [], () and "" to represent three different individuals, and I didn't write "this is what XXX said" because I thought my readers could think for themselves about what these three individuals are.

And here, the second point that leads me to how to interpret my article: pay attention to my words.

In the above paragraph, I did not use the word "person", but "individual", in order to avoid the limitation of pure words, because in most readers' truncation of the meaning of words, people refer to us; I don't use the so-called "shallow" vocabulary for many nouns because they have a guiding purpose, not because I want to use advanced words to dazzle your head, and I am not so idle.

Now, how to interpret the third point of my article: pay attention to the connection.

What is connection, what is logic, what is analysis, and notice how my first two points are connected?

There must be a cause for effect, but there are variables and possibilities in it.

For example, my book and some articles have similar results, but the process of how to get there is different, for example:

Luciano. Floridi --- Philosophy of Information = 9

I ---- "New Century Reiko Network" + "New World 2107" = 9 (forgive me for example)

But I might =4+5

And Mentor Floridi may be equal to 1+8

Don't interpret this book with the templated thinking of looking at a large part of the starting point of commercial works, it will give you a headache, because you can't apply that kind of mass production logic to my equation, the logic of the starting part of the work is: 4+5 = you want him to equal as much as you want; Or 9=1+0.

I don't think my readers should be Sherlock Holmes, but I'm trying to show a world, and you should see a world.

Next, how to interpret the fourth point of my article: nouns

"Philosophy of Information" is the name of a book, and it is actually the same concept as the "creative destruction" I mentioned in the previous chapter.

When reading, put aside your boredom and unravel your pride, but don't be modest, but explore the essence with aggression.

"Creative destruction", which is not what many people might think, "Ah, is creative when killing people and setting fires", is actually an economic terminology, derived from Adam. Smith and Carl. Marx's discussion of the nature of capitalism, if you search for creative destruction on Baidu, you will see a discussion about enterprise.

Extend that to the whole of humanity, please think for yourself.

Here, I will give a brief explanation: in the world of Gundam, humans have found a way to partially relieve the pressure of survival--- universe; But if humanity has found a way to alleviate it that is even more "narrow" than in the Gundam world, how can humanity carry out "creative destruction" on itself to ensure its own survival when its consciousness and mind have not progressed to a certain level?

In yesterday's chapter, I mentioned "reducing the aggregate of our needs--- both in terms of desires and the individuals who hold them", which is really about reprogramming or rewriting the human mind (reprogramme-the-mind) and reducing the number of people (note the difference between individuals and populations, what am I implying about).

Of course, the technical shaping of thinking, especially "desire", has been discussed in books such as "Perfect New World", and real-life advertising is actually a means, and I think that if the "hyper-virtual game" that many people say at the starting point can already give you such a real experience, then it is absolutely possible to influence your "desire", isn't it?

To read, to see, to understand--- is actually a few words with a lot of weight, and I will not upload them while writing annotations for myself

Finally, many of the characters' lines are actually what I want to say, these lines, sometimes, if you read a chapter in 3 minutes, you will ignore it;

For example, in Chapter 17, The Black Beast - The Other Side of Good and Evil, Char says, "。。。。。。; Instead of allowing it to develop freely, it forcibly mass-produces possibilities into universality, which fundamentally eliminates the possibility nature of existence. ”

Look carefully, think about it, in the book, this is Char's satire on the Federation's mass production of "new human terminals", and outside the book, this is my helplessness about the starting point.

Living in the great information age, what are we doing as children of information, intelligence, and possibility?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I have to express my irony again about the title of this chapter, "The Interpretation of the Law", and I must regret the suggestion of a friend of mine and reader to "spread it all out", and I thank you for your efforts to help promote the book, but I am helpless about your suggestion.

It is impossible for me to spread out everything and write it as if it were a purely commercial work, in my opinion, the author himself to say "this is a foreshadowing, don't worry" is a distortion of the concept of authorship, and I will never write it openly in a book; There is also an essential difference between my foreshadowing and those "foreshadowing".

Here, I must state that I do not ask and have no right to ask all readers to think when browsing the works, I respect the idea of treating commercial works as cheap entertainment, I have not lived as those people, and naturally I have no right to say much; I also don't say, "You don't like to look, go away quietly", I respect and defend your right to speak, but I also mean that I don't expect meaningless scolding.

But I do want to ask, what do we get when we shout "we want to be free", "live freely" and "liberate" every day, and what are we doing on the largest text platform on the Internet?

Years ago, someone said to me: You, William, you-can-see-the-code, but-not-the-nature-of-it.

Now, I would like to pass on this to my readers: even if we can see the source code of the Web, can we decipher its essence?

And I said, "Are you afraid of the world, and if your answer is yes, then think, because the best defense against the world is a detailed understanding of it, and understanding comes from thinking;

Do you want to be free? If your answer is yes, then think.

If you want to dance, to run, to play, then you need a healthy body, and whether you admit it or not, the body needs nutrients, nutrients need to be absorbed, and the foods that consume your time a lot of times will not bring you nutrients, and naturally will not give you the future you want.

And the authors, how to make these things into delicious dishes will be a difficult problem, and I am still working on it.

Dreamers in the Internet era, each of us is a beneficiary; And I, I think, I would see the benefits of a profession of "making food" for the human brain as a process or a by-product, not as an end in itself.

I'm here, but I can't spread my wings, so you won't see me when you look up at the sky, but if you look down at the trail of white feathers on the ground, you'll find me.

When you find me, if you want me to speak, just show me the feather you found me to use, and then spit out a few simple words to me, and I will speak.