Wisdom

Wisdom has been defined in evasive ways throughout history, but we aim to narrow the scope of what entails wisdom.

While wisdom is not a tangible object, intangible states can still be calculated via comparisons.

First, allow us to take some extreme examples to set our limits for what is and is not considered wise. The word furthest from ‘wisdom’ is ‘chaos’.

If we are to take two hypothetical agents, let’s call them A and B, who are tasked with an arbitrary job to move object 1 to location 2.

A takes object 1 and moves it to location 2. There is no loss of signal or addition of chaos when completing the task.

B takes object 1 and moves it in an unpredicted direction to location 3. There is loss of signal and a gain of chaos in the system.

So to summarize, wisdom must not add chaos to a system.

If your leaders choose to remove chaos from your environment, they are wise leaders.

Wisdom is not arbitrary.

Wisdom and chaos can also be compared by the utility of the statements being compared. A universal statement will have more wisdom than a personal statement.

C states, “I am hungry.”

W states, “While I am hungry, others are too, and I can serve others.”

The scope of the statement influences the wisdom of the statement.

If your leaders speak in narrow scopes, targeting favor only toward small, powerful groups in society, they are not wise leaders.

If a statement is redundant, adding redundancy to a statement reduces the wisdom of the statement and increases its noise.

C states, “This water is water.”

W states, “This water is filtered.”

C’s statement is fully redundant. W’s statement is descriptive.

If your leaders speak in redundant or meaningless statements, they are not wise leaders.

Wisdom is connected to honor.

Wisdom is the knowledge of honor. Honor is the practice of wisdom.

If W knows the orderly courses of action and chooses chaos, their knowledge and actions did not match their honor, and their actions cannot be considered wise. If W knows the chaotic courses of action and chooses order, their knowledge and actions matched their honor, and their actions can be considered wise.

在整个历史进程中，智慧一直以回避的方式被定义，但我们的目标是缩小蕴含智慧的范围。

虽然智慧不是有形的对象，但无形状态仍然可以通过比较来计算。

首先，请允许我们举一些极端的例子来为明智和不明智的事物设定我们的界限。 与 “智慧” 最遥远的词是 “混沌”。

如果我们要选取两个假设的代理，我们就称它们为 A 和 B，它们被赋予一项任意任务，将对象 1 移动到位置 2。

A 获取对象 1 并将其移动到位置 2。在完成任务时不会出现信号丢失或混乱添加情况。

B 取物体 1，并将其朝着不可预测的方向移动到位置 3。系统中存在信号丢失和混沌增益。

所以总之，智慧绝不能给一个系统增添混乱。

如果你的领导者选择从你的环境中消除混乱，他们就是明智的领导者。

智慧不是武断的。

智慧和混乱也可以通过所比较陈述的效用来比较。 一个普遍的陈述比一个个人陈述更有智慧。

C 说：“我饿了。”

W 说：“当我饥饿的时候，其他人也是，我可以为他人服务。”

陈述的范围影响陈述的智慧。

如果你的领导者说话范围狭窄，只针对社会中的小而强大的群体，他们就不是明智的领导者。

如果一个语句是冗余的，那么在语句中添加冗余会降低语句的合理性并增加其噪声。

C 说：“这水就是水。”

W 说：“这些水是经过过滤的。”

C的陈述是完全冗余的。W的陈述是描述性的。

如果你的领导者用多余或毫无意义的话语说话，他们就不是明智的领导者。

智慧与荣誉有关。

智慧是对荣誉的认识。荣誉是对智慧的践行。

如果 W 知道有序的行动方针并选择混乱，他们的知识和行动就与他们的荣誉不符，他们的行动就不能被视为明智之举。 如果 W 知道混乱的行动过程并选择秩序，他们的知识和行动就与他们的荣誉相匹配，他们的行动就可以被视为明智之举。