After reading the comments on my previous completion remarks, I realized that I had made another serious mistake.
I felt that I couldn't write "principles" perfectly, and even thought that principles were too great for an ordinary person like me to write about. I lacked confidence, so I said that I was writing about "reason."
In the end, this caused a misunderstanding, making readers think that "Eternal Fire believes stories and reason are incompatible."
In reality, I believe that principles are difficult to reconcile with stories, while reason and stories are a perfect combination.
Let me state the main point first: the core of this book has always been principles, not reason.
Reason and principles have never been the same thing.
This was my mistake. I failed to clearly define the boundaries between these two terms in the book and in my remarks.
Reason and principles are concepts that intersect, but are completely different.
The word "reason" basically has three meanings.
First, the principles, rules, and human sentiments involved in everyday life.
Second, a deeper meaning: "the laws governing things."
Third, in ancient Classics, the deepest meaning of reason is the principle from which the Dao emerged, an additional attribute of the Great Dao. No one can explain this thing clearly. The Dao De Jing by Lao Tzu still has countless interpretations to this day, with no absolutely authoritative interpretation. So don't tell me that some novelist can write out this kind of reason.
In practice, then, reason has only the first two meanings.
The most common contexts for reason are almost always forms of "fuzzy perception": feelings, experience, instinct, common sense, everyday life, and so on.
Take the simplest example: the Pythagorean theorem.
First, reason: Suppose there is a three-centimeter wooden strip and a four-centimeter wooden strip, arranged at