The Need and Feasibility of the UN to Lead the Human Community in Creating a Digital Planet(022)
— An Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Global Sages
5.3.2 “Belief” is very difficult
The “belief” referred to here is the sufficiently firm belief, not the half-belief or the gullible belief. “Belief” is very difficult, which actually means that “sufficient belief” is very difficult. Over 2,000 years ago, Lao Tzu in “Tao Te Ching” lamented twice, “Not enough trust, and disbelief in the facts.” This means, “When people’s degree of belief is not enough, even if you put a fact in front of them, they still won’t believe it.”
It is worth noting that the entire Tao Te Ching has only over 5,000 characters. Lao Tzu, who cherished words like gold, repeated this sentence here because he knew how difficult it was to make people believe in something they have not yet cognized. Or, in other words, when a person’s cognition is still at point A, it is impossible for them to switch to point B at that moment. Unless you can make their belief in point B reach 100%. Only 100% belief is called “sufficient belief” and can be truly believed. If there is only 20%, 30%, or even 80%, 90% belief, it is considered “insufficient belief” and “half-belief.” When people’s belief is insufficient, even if you put a fact in front of them, they still won’t truly believe it. The reason Lao Tzu repeatedly lamented, “Not enough trust, and disbelief in the facts.” is that he was very clear that the biggest problem for humanity lies in belief. Without this belief, human civilization cannot develop.
When I talked about cognitive frameworks and cognitive cores earlier, I was actually trying to present the principles that people of this era can see and feel, putting them in front of everyone so that they can believe. However, what I understand even more is that, let alone these are merely principles, let alone these principles are too abstract and complex, even if a very specific and clear fact is placed in front of people, if it exceeds their inherent cognitive scope, they still won’t believe it. Obviously, the many facts I’ve discussed earlier are actually useless for over 99% of people. There may be less than 1% of people who are a little interested in these facts. But it’s just a little interest, not belief, let alone “sufficient belief.” But all of this doesn’t matter. The essential meaning of this systematic cognition, from framework to connotation, is to “set this down for the record.” It is mainly to provide a continuous testimony for the “method of belief” later. When the testimonies of most people’s practices can gradually match this cognitive system step by step, “belief” will become more and more sufficient. At this time, not only is it easier to reach a consensus, but the consensus is also less likely to break. Therefore, even if only a very few the Sages are interested in the story told in this open letter, it will have great significance. Because they are very likely to be the sparks that ignite this cognitive testimony system.
What is continuous testimony? What is a testimony system? To understand this, let us first review history.
About 2,500 years ago, 2,000 years ago, and 1,300 years ago, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam were founded, respectively. These are what we now call the world’s three major religions. They all used a fictional story to bring together the maximum consensus among humanity, thus forming a model for creating great social change. However, even though they have such strong vitality and influence, after 1,000–2,000 years of propagation and education, none of them have been able to gather even 1/3 of the global population’s consensus. Therefore, their ability to change the world is still limited.
Capitalism is different. It is undoubtedly also a typical fictional story. If we consider the publication of Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” in 1776 as the origin of modern capitalism, this fictional story of capitalism has managed to gain the unwavering belief of at least 95% of the global population in just under 300 years. It has formed an unprecedentedly massive force in human history, profoundly changing human society and even the entire global ecosystem.
Reviewing this history aims to convey three layers of meaning.
The first layer is that fictional stories indeed have the power to change the world.
The second layer is to question why figures like Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad, who are universally recognized as enlightened individuals, founded one complete ideological system after another with their great wisdom, but none of them could influence more than 1/3 of the world’s population. However, a fictional story of capitalism, invented by an unknown person and even named by later generations, has managed to make over 95% of the world’s population firmly believe in it. As a result, under the influence of this fictional story, human society has undergone tremendous changes.
The third layer is that the three major religions were all created by individuals, while capitalism was collectively created by wise people from around the world.
Very few people in the world should be pondering these three questions, especially the second one.
Dear Secretary-General and Global Sages, as long as we try to think from this perspective and attempt to find the answers, we can easily approach the truth of cognition and easily find new solutions for the self-rescue of the United Nations and humanity.
Whether or not you believe what I have said so far, and to what extent you believe it, is not important. What is important is that, whether it’s the Secretary-General or the Global Sages, as long as this letter has the potential to change the way we think about problems, perhaps we can achieve our first step of consensus. This first step of consensus is: we need to work together to build a sufficiently new, sufficiently large, and interest-related fictional story for everyone, which each person can believe. Only then can we gather as much global consensus as possible, forming a great force to change the world.
We all know that both the self-rescue of the United Nations and the self-rescue of humanity are global events and large-scale projects. These global projects can no longer rely solely on the United Nations or other countries, regions, or institutions that are enthusiastic about this cause. Instead, we must maximize the gathering of human consensus to form a tremendous societal force to complete such global projects. In today’s new era, as long as this consensus is reached, any human endeavor becomes easier.
I am merely an advocate for the fictional story of the “United Nations leading humanity in building a digital Earth.” Some have criticized this letter as being neither rigorous nor meticulous, arbitrary, and lacking sufficient arguments and evidence. I am not writing an academic paper or a monograph; I am merely describing a grand fictional story. This fictional story is just a starting point for further ideas. The Secretary-General and Global Sages are the actual creators. What we will create may be an improved version of this fictional story, or perhaps another fictional story altogether. In any case, when this fictional story is created by you, will you believe it?
At this point, the Global Sages may still have a question: even if we agree with the idea of a fictional story, even if we jointly build a fictional story and achieve consensus, how can we make more than 95% of the global population believe in it? If they do not believe or have insufficient belief, and only less than 5% of the global population believes, won’t we still be unable to use this “fictional story” to change the world?
Let us think about the earlier mentioned fictional story of capitalism. Why was it able to gain the belief of the vast majority of the global population in less than 300 years? Capitalism is precisely a fictional story created collectively by the wise individuals from around the world. Its success surely offers us some inspiration. In fact, the success of capitalism tells us that “belief” has a method. This method involves the “continuous testimony” and “testimony system” mentioned earlier.
(To be continued)
The English translation is mainly done by AI and is inevitably not accurate enough. Please refer to the original Chinese text below for a more accurate understanding.
联合国引领人类社会打造数字地球的必要性和可行性（022）
— — 致联合国秘书长古特雷斯及全球贤达的公开信
5.3.2 “信”是非常难的
这里所指的“信”，是信得足的“信”。而不是半信半疑的“信”，更不是轻信的“信”。“信”非常难，实际上是说“信得足”非常难。2000多年前，老子在《道德经》中，曾经两次发出这样的感叹：“信不足焉，有不信焉”。意思是：“当人们的相信程度没达到足够时，你就是把一个事实放在他面前，他都依然不会相信。”
要知道，整个道德经只有5000多字。惜字如金的老子，为何要在这里一再重复这么一句话。就是因为，他深知，要让人们相信一些他们暂时还没有认知到的东西，太难了。或者说，当一个人的认知还停留在A点上时，你要他这时转变到B点上，是完全没有可能的。除非你能让他对B点的相信程度达到100%。只有100%相信，才叫“信得足”，才能真正相信。如果只有20%、30%相信，甚至是80%、90%的相信，都属于“信不足”，属于“半信半疑”。而当人们信不足时，你就是把一个事实摆在它面前，他都依然不会真正相信。老子之所以一再感叹“信不足焉，有不信焉”，就是他非常清楚，人类最大的问题就出在信上。而没有这个信，人类文明根本无法向前发展。
我前面讲认知框架、讲认知内核，实际上，都是试图将这个时代人们可以看到、感到的道理阐述出来，摆在大家面前，让人们能相信。可是，我更清楚的是，别说这些仅仅是道理，别说这些道理还太抽象、太复杂，就算是把一个非常具体的、非常明确的事实，摆在人们面前，如果超出了他固有的认知范畴，他依然不会相信。很显然，我前面花大量篇幅讲这些事实，其实对99%以上的人来说是毫无作用的。可能有不到1%的人，会对这些事实有点兴趣。但仅仅是有点兴趣而已，根本不是信，更别说“信得足”了。但这些都没关系。这些从框架到内涵的系统认知，实质上的意义是“立此存照”。主要是为了给后面“信的方法”提供一个具有连续性的见证。当大多数人实践的见证，都能与这个认知系统一步一步相吻合时，“信”就能越来越足。这时候，不仅共识容易达成，共识还不容易破裂。所以，即使只有极少数贤达，对这封公开信讲的故事感兴趣，也会具有极大的意义。因为，他们极可能是燎原这个认知见证系统的星星之火。
什么是连续性见证？什么又是见证系统。对此，我们不妨先回顾一下历史。
距今2500年前、2000年前和1300年前，佛教、基督教和伊斯兰教相继创立。这就是我们今天所称的世界三大宗教。它们都是用一个虚构故事，凝聚人类最大化共识，从而形成改变社会巨大力量的典范。但是，即便它们具有如此强大的生命力和影响力，经过1000–2000年的传播和教化，至今也依然没有任何一家能够凝聚哪怕全球1/3人的共识。因此，它们改变世界的力度依然有限。
而资本主义就不同了，它无疑也是一个典型的虚构故事。如果以亚当·斯密1776 年出版《国家财富的性质和成因调查》，作为现代资本主义起源来算。资本主义这个虚构故事，竟然可以在短短不到300年的时间内，让全球至少95%以上的人，都对它笃信不疑。从而形成了人类有史以来从未有过的巨大力量，深刻地改变了人类社会，甚至改变了整个地球生态。
回顾这段历史是想传达三层意思。
第一层，虚构故事的确具有改变世界的力量。
第二层，为什么像释迦牟尼、耶稣基督、穆罕默德，这些世所公认的觉者，以他们的大贤大智，创立了一套又一套完备思想体系所支撑的虚构故事，都没能影响到超过1/3的世界人口。而一个不知是谁发明的，连名称都是后世给加上去的资本主义虚构故事， 却能使得世界上95%以上的人深信不疑。以至于在这个虚构故事的作用下，让人类社会发生了天翻地覆的巨大变化。
第三层，三大宗教都是由个人创造的。而资本主义是集体创造的，是由全球贤达们共同创造的。
这个世界上，应该极少有人思考这三层问题，尤其是第二层问题。
秘书长，以及各位全球贤达，只要我们尝试从这个角度去思考、尝试去找出答案。我们就可以很容易接近认知真相，也很容易找到联合国自救、人类自救的全新解决方案了。
我前面说的所有这些内容，大家信不信、信多少都不重要。重要的是，秘书长也好、全球贤达也好，只要这封信有可能转换一下我们思考问题的角度。或许，我们的第一步共识就可以达成了。这第一步共识就是：我们需要共同去构建一个足够新、足够大，与每个人利益相关。并且，能让每个人相信的“虚构故事”。才能尽可能凝聚全球更多人共识，形成改变这个世界的巨大力量。
我们都清楚，无论是联合国自救、人类自救，都是全球性的大事件、大工程。这种全球性大工程，不能再仅仅只靠联合国，或者其它一些热心于这一事业的国家、地区或机构来完成。而必须尽可能最大化凝聚人类共识，才能形成全社会的巨大力量，来完成这样的全球性大工程。而在今天这样一个新时代，只要这个共识能达成，其实，人类的什么事情就都好办了。
“联合国引领人类社会打造数字地球”这个虚构故事，我只是一个倡导者。有人批评，说我这封信既不严谨、又不缜密，随心所欲，论点论据都不充分。我不是在写论文，也不是在写专著，我只不过是在描述一个宏大的虚构故事而已。而这个虚构故事，也只不过是在抛砖引玉。秘书长与全球贤达才是实际创造者。我们将要创造的，也许是这个虚构故事的改进版，也许是另一个虚构故事。总之，当这个虚构故事是由你自己创造的，你信不信？
说到这里，贤达们或许还有一个疑问，就算我们认同虚构故事这个提法，就算我们共同构建了一个虚构故事，也达成了共识，可如何让全球95%以上的人相信呢，他们如果不信，或者信不足，仅仅我们不到全球5%的人相信，不是依然无法用这个“虚构故事”来改变世界吗。
那我们不妨想一想，前面说到的资本主义这个虚构故事，为什么能在不到300年时间内，让全球绝大多数人相信。而资本主义正是一个由全球贤达们共同创造的虚构故事。它能成功，对我们难道没有启示。事实上，资本主义的成功告诉我们：“信”是有方法的。这个方法，就涉及到前面提到的“连续性见证”，以及“见证系统”。
（未完待续）
