It’s a kind of wisdom to concede and accept that there are corners in the world where the light of reason cannot reach. I’m too young, still need to learn that wisdom.

  "As long as I live,I would be an enemy of Rome! "

 

  “我谨希望各位，能够为了保卫养育我们的祖国，迦太基的光辉以及大家深爱的女人，将仅有的一点勇气，投入到明天的残酷战斗中去。是的，我们也许会输------你，我，他，可能会独自死去，但一定会有人活着离开战场。很多年后，人们在谈到今天的我们时会赞美迦太基的第二次复苏。同样，人们也会为我们的明天落泪，为迦太基感慨。不过我更相信人们望着那片沙地，他们高歌他们欢笑，他们会说：‘看哪，那个俊美的小子回来了，满载着战利品、罗马人的鲜血，还有一个真正军人的荣耀！’” 

--汉尼拔于扎马决战前夕。(http://post.baidu.com/f?z=166104074&ct=335544320&lm=0&sc=0&rn=50&tn=baiduPostBrowser&word=%C0%FA%CA%B7%D1%D0%BE%BF&pn=0,可靠性待考)

"也许仅就取得的功绩与战役的规模而言，比他强者有很多，但是，当亚历山大征服波斯的时候，他的身后，是整个希腊世界；当恺撒征服高卢的时候，他的身后，是强大的罗马；当白起横扫六国之军时，他的身后，是国力雄厚的秦；当霍去病封狼居胥时，他的身后，是达到鼎盛的汉。而在汉尼拔远征意大利的时候，他的身后是什么？是一个目光短浅、嫉贤妒能的国家，是看着汉尼拔孤军奋战却不肯给予援军的迦太基元老院。在这样的背景下，带着一群不会说本国语言的士兵，操着各式各样的武器，穿着五花八门的盔甲，在没有后方的情况下，与强大的罗马血战16年未尝一败，这样的壮举，却只有汉尼拔做到了！"(  http://post.baidu.com/f?z=166104074&ct=335544320&lm=0&sc=0&rn=50&tn=baiduPostBrowser&word=%C0%FA%CA%B7%D1%D0%BE%BF&pn=0)

 

  今天看了一下汉尼拔的事迹。他很强，在第一次布匿战争后制海权已被罗马掌握的情况下，凭着一颗报复罗马的仇恨和信念带领40000余士兵攀过比利牛斯山脉，攀过阿尔卑斯山，攻到罗马城下。 16年几乎战无不胜.

  他的失败，最直接的原因：１，孤军深入无援，他弟进军援助他路中被全军歼灭。２，费边的拖延战术成功牵制了他的进攻。　3,西辟阿不与汉尼拔正面交锋，而转而进攻迦太基本土，导致汉尼拔被召回本土防卫。

  在后来保卫迦太基的轧马会战中遭惨败，迦太基被迫签订不平等条约，赔偿巨款、销毁几乎所有战舰。汉尼拔逃亡，最终服毒自杀。５０年后，罗马发动第三次布匿战争，摧毁迦太基城，将所有幸存居民卖为奴隶。

  汉尼拔是个悲剧英雄，率军攀越阿尔卑斯山进攻罗马腹地，不可为而为之，为了自己许下的诺言，不顾一切地进攻，从审美上我很喜欢，这样的人历史上很多，比如拜占庭的朱里安皇帝，一心要在基督教的国度恢复希腊异教……常使文人垂泣凭吊。

  后来跟我哥讨论起他，他一语道破，迦太基的毁灭不是战术上的，而是战略上的。为了仇恨深入敌境，只为了对罗马造成尽可能大的伤害，却没有明确的、现实的和分步骤的战略目的，整个迦太基十几年像无头苍蝇一样不知道自己在干什么，这是导致失败的根本。从这个意义上讲，汉尼拔也许是迦太基的罪人。后来又联想起了拿破仑进攻俄罗斯，战术上一路成功，打入圣彼得堡（其实是别人故意让给他的），却没什么战略意义。

  其实具体的史实我并不十分了解。我只是喜欢汉尼拔这个人。他多半也是个白羊座，Ｏ型血。喝多啦，东拼西凑地瞎写写。

   突然又想起三国演义里面最让人心酸的一句话：孔明“得其主而不得其时”。可失败到底是人引起的还是时造成的？

  We shall surpass the Alps, plunder the heartland of Rome, even the consequence is humiliation and death!

 

补充(20080116)：最近在读Von Clausewitz的On War, 颇受启发，在此列出几条重要观点，对照上述仁兄的光荣事迹思考之。

1. War is never an isolated act. War does not consist of a single instantaneous blow. The Result in war is never absolute.

2. The War of a community – of whole Nations, and particularly of civilised Nations – always starts from a political condition, and is called forth by a political motive… War in the real world, as we have already seen, is not an extreme thing which expends itself at one single discharge… (Rather) to be subject to the will of a guiding intelligence. If we reflect that War has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in its conduct.

3. Policy, therefore, is interwoven with the whole action of War, and must exercise a continuous influence upon it, as far as the nature of the forces liberated by it will permit.  

4. War is a mere continuation of policy by other means (viz. Violence).

5. War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception. (All above quoted from Clausewitz,  On War, content in brackets added by myself.)

  ‘Violence arms itself with inventions of Arts and Science in order to contend violence’, the above mentioned commanders mastered these arts and science to the extent that close to the state of art. However, War does not proceed in vacuum.  It happens in specific situation and circumstances. It is politics by other means. It is one of the instruments of state policy, in the meantime, all the elements in your state could be used as instruments of war. Therefore a smart general should not neglect the political objective of the war which his activity in the battle ground should serve and push the war into extreme merely because of his personal emotion. The war serves the policy rather than the policy serves the war (as long as the policies are not incompatible with the conduct of the war which is rightly implemented in order to achieve the state policy).

  In the case of Hannibal, before his expedition, he should have thought about that, was it possible for Carthage to totally destroy Rome? By every account, it was impossible (the political constitutions, the economic situations, the military systems, the individual capability of their soldiers and commanders, the general strategic situation before the war, etc. Generally speaking, the war potential of both nations was asymmetric.) Understanding that it was impossible to destroy Rome, was it clever still to set the destruction of Rome as the objective? Was it clever still to initiate his expedition which would lose many of his soldiers even before the battle was start and without definite prospect of sufficient reinforcements from his homeland? Was it clever to continue his fighting after several splendid victories until the situation deteriorated instead of finding a favourable diplomatic settlement and wait for better opportunities in the future? 

 

  I've told you that when you have power, you need more power to preserve it or you just give it up. There is no status quo. Before knowing this you shoud not touch such evil thing as power. Especially in China!

  You just don't listen to me.

“We impose meaning on ‘facts’” – yes, ‘facts’ do not necessarily have ‘meaning’. The Sun burns itself without meaning and purpose, the stars revolve without meaning and purpose -- we impose meaning on meaningless facts – or the facts have different meaning other than what we have perceived. One of the uniqueness of man is their preference for ‘meaning’.

Discern it well, my brethren – what you are pursuing is the ‘facts’ per se, or the ‘meaning’ you imposed? In some case, the ‘meaning’ may be ultimately irrelevant to the ‘facts’, or even opposite to it!

The love for meaning and the love for fact are different kinds of love. I can say the love for meaning is merely the love for you yourself, a selfish love.

Until now, the ‘meaning’ I’ve been talking about is the ‘meaning’ derives from ‘facts’ and what I despise is those who cannot discriminate what is ‘meaning’ and what is ‘fact’, those who are confused about actually what they love. In such love, what they are concerning is to what extent the facts they are 'loving' can fulfil their 'meaning'! Maybe they don't even love what they are 'loving'! There is another kind of ‘meaning’, however -- the meaning without ‘fact’, which is articulated purely by mind and irrelevant to the 'facts' from the outset. The love for this kind of meaning is equally genuine to the love for pure facts. The logic behind this is a convergence – the existence of the ‘facts’ per se is its meaning and if a ‘meaning’ is without ‘fact’ then the meaning itself becomes a fact.

But which one is better? Which kind of love is superior? I don’t know. It’s quite likely that it just depends on personal preference. My preference is the love for facts. Love for those who really exist and love for their existence per se.

 

  

  Man is a conflict, a confusion. Oh, the Earth has a disease on its skin, the name is Man. And in Man, there is a parasite – the name is Mind or – Spirit!

  The Spirit is a disaster for the Flesh and the Flesh is the bondage for the Spirit.

  Oh God, where is the reconciliation? God are you here?

听着巴赫的《马太受难曲》。不知道在这个崇尚花里胡哨的时代，老巴赫还有多少忠实的听众，而不管怎么样，巴赫的音乐却总是我最忠实的朋友。巴赫最感人的还是他的宗教音乐，可惜我不信教，我很想坚信点什么，可是世界上似乎没什么可坚信的——“存在先于本质”，一切皆出于偶然，unbearable freedom——就像每晚钻进我房间的飞虫，他们凭着一点微光从狭小的窗缝钻进了我的房间，可他们的智力却不足以引导他们走出我的昏暗的房间，回到本来属于他们自己的世界——他们钻进我的房间，只有死路一条——不是世界上没有可信的东西，只是我们的智慧无法告诉我们该相信什么？

今天我要谈的不是自由，而是不自由。作为一种审美概念的不自由。虽然我不信上帝，不信教，但巴赫的音乐还是让我感动流涕。对基督来说，一切都是写好了的——“福音书上说了，鸡鸣时分，你将背叛我三次”，可是我让你背叛，这是我的命运，你的背叛甚至是我的幸福。“福音书上说了，我将被钉死在十字架上”，可是我不躲避，我主动背起我死亡的十字架，死亡的十字架是我美丽的归宿。

可是对基督来说，凡死亡者必定复活，对我们普通人来说呢？

痛苦、不审美——对人来说其实没有自由，也没有不自由，有的只是无知和混乱。

唔，“地狱天堂皆在人间”，但我们没有能力选择！

  Man! Avoid any effeminate sentiments! Being strong is obligatory! The Sun is always bestowing without his heat and light diminished. Be an Empire, mobile, exploit and conquer; not a fortress – you are too poor and have nothing to defend! 

1.       Afternoon coffee and cigarette – you do something persistently doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve been addicted to it. Rather, you Need something which can be addicted to, you want to be addicted to something voluntarily, you Find something to be addicted to – something you can flirt with all the day – you can’t always get what you really want, intensely need, then you turn into something you can easily acquire – in my case, coffee and cigarette.

2.       今天起床一看帐户,被盗的钱全部追回来了,很开心. 

One day I say happiness relies on reality. Another day I find it doubtful. I ask myself “maybe phantom is more lovable?” For phantom is perfect, it will not disappoint you; it is made by yourself, static, it only changes as you change; it’s your most faithful. Lo, it is You! For man, it is the woman inside his body -- it is a perfect woman. For woman, it is the man inside her body – it is a perfect man. It will not despise you as you will not despise yourself. It will not forsake you as you will not forsake yourself.

The love with phantom is not a higher love, however. It’s a painful love, a tragedy, beautiful maybe, but utterly unhealthy. It’s a substitute for an overflowing heart who finds no Companion in the reality. But man, how many of you could find your true Companion? 

  这是我在别人space的一则回复，我觉得，这也是我一向的观点，所以也粘贴到自己的space里吧！ （英文若有语法错误，万请见谅，我是中国人，但有时候觉得某些内容，用英文表达更有力度。。。）

 

  Sometimes freedom and the euphoria accompanied in the process of pursuing freedom -- though in most of the cases are only illusive – is worth the price of your life if it is so hard to get. In many cases, it’s a matter of aesthetic rather than normative and it's a splendid and expensive commodity for a selected few. We normal people will not understand these Free individuals.

 

　　与自由对立的，在哲学上说是“命定”（free will vs. determinism)，在政治上说是“专制”(democracy vs. totalitarianlism, authoritarism....) 。。。。。。。。。。。。。呃，本来又写了一大堆，后来看了一下乱其八糟，有碍观瞻，写不下去了，干脆全删掉就这样吧。。。在某人的刺激下，本来想喝２口酒好睡觉，一冲动，又把半瓶酒喝掉了。。。罪过罪过。。。。这篇文字跟我现在的心情没有丝毫关系，只是２天前给别人的一个回复而已，突然抽风，又睡不着觉，所以贴到自己的space。。。。我这段时间，除了论文以外，心情实在是好得不得了。。。。

唉，这两个星期老头疼，真痛苦。。。

可能是酒喝少了吧，几个星期没好好喝酒了，今晚喝了大半瓶葡萄酒，头疼似乎好点了。。。。

最近看柏杨先生的白话版《资治通鉴》（原文版我看了个什么什么提格，凡困敦三十五年，也就是第一句，就看不下去了。。。，我手上还是没有标点的超级原文版，吐个血）

现在才看到秦灭6国那块。最大的感触是，中国古代的史著讲到战争的时候（秦国在中国这片无垠的乾坤之下灭了6国，可歌可泣的大战役应该不少吧？），很少有描述战争具体是怎么打的，更多的却是我派个什么人到你那里说几句话，送几千万两金银，你把前线某个将军换个班，这仗就打赢了。。。

我怀疑，历史真的这么简单么？可怜那成千上万被砍杀的民众，不管是可歌可泣的抵抗，还是因为诈术白白送了性命，都还是死了。