4阶行列式-格言是什么意思

Man in the Realm of Nature
Nature nurtures mankind unselfishly with its rich resources. Yet, man is so carried away in his transformation of nature that he is unaware that it also has limitations and needs constant care. Now worn by the excessive demands of mankind, nature is unable to maintain the ecological balance needed. Humanity is faced with the problem of how to stop, or at least to moderate, the destruction of Mother Nature.
Alexander Spirkin

Human beings live in the realm of nature. They are constantly surrounded by it and interact with it. Man is constantly aware of the influence of nature in the form of the air he breathes, the water he drinks, and the food he eats. We are connected with nature by "blood" ties and we cannot live outside nature.

Man is not only a dweller in nature, he also transforms it. Humanity converts nature's wealth into the means of the cultural, historical life of society. Man has subdued and disciplined electricity and compelled it to serve the interests of society. Not only has man transferred various species of plants and animals to different climatic conditions, he has also changed the shape and climate of his environment and transformed plants and animals.

As society develops, man tends to become less dependent on nature directly, while indirectly his dependence grows. Our distant ancestors lived in fear of nature's destructive forces. Very often they were unable to obtain the merest daily necessities. However, despite their imperfect tools, they worked together stubbornly, collectively, and were able to attain results. Nature was also changed through interaction with man. Forests were destroyed and the area of farmland increased. Nature with its elemental forces was regarded as something hostile to man. The forest, for example, was something wild and frightening and people tried to force it to retreat. This was all done in the name of civilisation, which meant the places where man had made his home, where the earth was cultivated, where the forest had been cut down.

But as time goes on mankind becomes increasingly concerned with the question of where and how to obtain irreplaceable natural resources for the needs of production. Science and man's practical transforming activities have made humanity aware of the enormous geological role played by the industrial transformation of the earth.

At present the previous dynamic balance between man and nature and between nature and society as a whole, has shown ominous signs of breaking down. The problem of the so-called replaceable resources of the biosphere has become particularly acute. It is getting more and more difficult to satisfy the needs of human beings and society even for such a substance, for example, as fresh water. The problem of eliminating industrial waste is also becoming increasingly complex.

Modern technology is distinguished by an ever increasing abundance of produced and used synthetic goods. Hundreds of tho
usands of synthetic materials are being made. People increasingly cover their bodies from head to foot in nylon and other synthetic, glittering fabrics that are obviously not good for them. Young people may hardly feel this, and they pay more attention to appearance than to health. But they become more aware of this harmful influence as they grow older.

As time goes on the synthetic output of production turns into waste, and then substances that in their original form were not very toxic are transformed in the cycle of natural processes into aggressive agents. Today both natural scientists and philosophers are asking themselves the question: Is man's destruction of the biosphere inevitable?

The man-nature relation – the crisis of the ecological situation – is a global problem. Its solution lies in rational and wise organization of both production itself and care for Mother Nature, not just by individuals, enterprises or countries, but by all humanity. One of the ways to deal with the crisis situation in the "man-nature" system is to use such resources as solar energy, the power of winds, the riches of the seas and oceans and other, as yet unknown natural forces of the universe.

But to return to our theme, the bitter truth is that those human actions which violate the laws of nature, the harmony of the biosphere, threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may turn out to be universal. How apt then are the words of ancient Oriental wisdom: live closer to nature, my friends, and its eternal laws will protect you!




Extinctions, Past and Present
Man and wildlife are supposed to live in harmony, but human intrusion has driven a large number of species to extinction. It is high time that we took up the cause of wildlife conservation; otherwise, the price for us to pay in the future will be extremely high. In the following essay, the author calls for a global fund for wildlife conservation.
Richard Leakey

I spent some of the most exciting days of my life working on the eastern shores of Kenya's Lake Turkana searching for the fossilized remains (遗体) of our early ancestors. We did not always find what we wanted, but every day there was much more to discover than the traces of our own ancestors. The fossils, some quite complete, others mere fragments, spoke of another world in which the ancestors of many of today's African mammals (哺乳动物) wandered the rich grassland and forest edges between 1.5 million and 2 million years ago. The environment was not too different from the wetter grasslands of Africa today, but it was full of amazing animals that are now long extinct (绝种的).

That was true not just for Africa. The fossil record tells the same story everywhere. It is estimated that more than 95％ of the species that have existed over the past 600 million years are gone.

So, should we be concerned about the current rate of extinction (灭绝), which has been accelerated by the constant expansion
take it for granted that the development of technology will make us happier. However, little evidence can be found to prove the correlation between technology and happiness once material and technological advances reach a certain level. The text below may provide you with some insights into this issue.
James Surowiecki

In the 20th century, Americans, Europeans, and East Asians enjoyed material and technological advances that were unimaginable in previous eras. In the United States, for instance, gross domestic product per capita tripled from 1950 to 2000. Life expectancy soared. The boom in productivity after World War II made goods better and cheaper at the same time. Things that were once luxuries, such as jet travel and long-distance phone calls, became necessities. And even though Americans seemed to work extraordinarily hard, their pursuit of entertainment turned media and leisure into multibillion-dollar industries.

By most standards, then, you would have to say that Americans are better off now than they were in the middle of the last century. Oddly, though, if you ask Americans how happy they are, you find that they are no happier than they were in 1946 (which is when formal surveys of happiness started). In fact, the percentage of people who say they are "very happy" has fallen slightly since the early 1970s – even though the income of people born in 1940 has, on average, increased by 116 percent over the course of their working lives. You can find similar data for most developed countries.

The relationship between happiness and technology has been an eternal subject for social critics and philosophers since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. But it's been left largely unexamined by economists and social scientists. The truly groundbreaking work on the relationship between prosperity and well-being was done by the economist Richard Easterlin, who in 1974 wrote a famous paper entitled "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?" Easterlin showed that when it came to developed countries, there was no real correlation between a nation's income level and its citizens' happiness. Money, Easterlin argued, could not buy happiness – at least not after a certain point. Easterlin showed that though poverty was strongly correlated with misery, once a country was solidly middle-class, getting wealthier did not seem to make its citizens any happier.

This seems to be close to a universal phenomenon. In fact, one of happiness scholars' most important insights is that people adapt very quickly to good news. Take lottery winners for example. One famous study showed that although winners were very, very happy when they won, their extreme excitement quickly evaporated, and after a while their moods and sense of well-being were indistinguishable from what they had been before the victory.

So, too, with technology: no matter how dramatic a new innovation is, no matter how much easier it makes our lives, it
is very easy to take it for granted. You can see this principle at work in the world of technology every day, as things that once seemed miraculous soon become common and, worse, frustrating when they don't work perfectly. It's hard, it turns out, to keep in mind what things were like before the new technology came along.

Does our fast assimilation of technological progress mean, then, that technology makes no difference? No. It just makes the question of technology's impact, for good or ill, more complicated. Let's start with the downside. There are certain ways in which technology makes life obviously worse. Telemarketing, traffic jams, and identity theft all come to mind. These are all phenomena that make people consciously unhappy. But for the most part, modern critiques of technology have focused not so much on specific, bad technologies as the impact of technology on our human relationships.

Privacy has become increasingly fragile in a world of linked databases. In many workplaces, technologies like keystroke monitoring and full recordings of phone calls make it easier to watch workers. The notion that technology disrupts relationships and fractures community gained mainstream prominence as an attack on television. Some even say that TV is chiefly responsible for the gradual isolation of Americans from each other. Similarly, the harmful effects of the Internet, which supposedly further isolates people from what is often called "the real world".

This broad criticism of technology's impact on relationships is an interesting one and is especially relevant to the question of happiness, because one of the few things we can say for certain is that the more friends and the closer relationships people have, the happier they tend to be.

Today, technological change is so rapid that when you buy something, you do so knowing that in a few months there's going to be a better, faster version of the product, and that you're going to be stuck with the old one. Someone else, in other words, has it better. It's as if disappointment were built into acquisition from the very beginning.

Daily stress, an annoying sense of disappointment, fear that the government knows a lot more about you than you would like it to – these are obviously some of the ways in which technology reduces people's sense of well-being. But the most important impact of technology on people's sense of well-being is in the field of health care. Before the Industrial Revolution, two out of every three Europeans died before the age of 30. Today, life expectancy for women in Western Europe is almost 80 years, and it continues to increase. The point is obvious: the vast majority of people are happy to be alive, and the more time they get on earth, the better off they feel they'll be. But until very recently, life for the vast majority of people was nasty, rough, and short. Technology has changed that, at least for people in the rich world. As much as we should
worry about the rising cost of health care and the problem of the uninsured, it's also worth remembering how valuable for our spirits as well as our bodies are the benefits that medical technology has brought us.

On a deeper level, what the technological improvement of our health and our longevity emphasizes is a paradox of any discussion of happiness on a national or a global level: even though people may not be happier, even though they are wealthier and possess more technology, they're still as hungry as ever for more time. It's like that old joke: the food may not be so great, but we want the portions to be as big as possible.




Who to Blame, Technology or the Person Who Uses It?
Nowadays, great concern has arisen over the negative impact of technology on various aspects of life. Who is to blame for the negative impact, technology or the person who uses it? Read the following text and see how the author answers the question.
Spiros Tzelepis

Technology is always a "hot" issue in discussions nowadays. A lot has been said and written about it. The defenders of technology are as many as the opponents of it. Usually each one of these two classes of people stresses the advantages or disadvantages of technology without taking the time to look at the opposite point of view. For those who have no prejudice in favor of or against technology, the truth is to be found somewhere between these two extreme views. Technology is like a knife: we can use it to cut our food, and we can also use it to kill somebody. It depends on what we want to do with technology. Do we want to improve our lives or do we want to destroy them?

Of course, nobody can neglect the fact that our living conditions have been improved due to technology; scientists have been able to cure many diseases; production has been increased, and many products have become obtainable by many more people, because the cost of production has been reduced; human labor has been decreased, and, therefore, people have more free time; people's mental horizons have been broadened; and generally we live longer and better because of technology.

But the other side of the coin has become already visible. We talk about the irrational interference with nature, the exhaustion of natural resources, the consumerism of modern societies, the social responsibility of scientists when their inventions are used for bad ends, and the mechanization of work which leaves man as little more than a machine operator.

Let us use an example from medicine to make matters clearer.

Technology improves people's health. This can be seen if one looks at the possibilities of surgery in technologically developed countries like America as compared to countries which do not have this advantage. On the other hand, the involvement of advanced technical equipment in medicine modified the synthetic and conservative way of thinking into an analytical (分析的) one. The physician can do much, but not on
his own. Doctors today have become "good learners", but not "thinkers" as they are used to translating every piece of health data into numbers. A close relationship and human interaction between the doctor and the patient does not exist any more. Patients feel more like objects than persons.

Furthermore, consider biotechnology (生物工艺学). It fascinates man's thoughts. The fact that scientists feel that they can "play" with the secret of life pushes them further and further, promising biological immortality and eternity. People expect miracles from genetic engineering, but nature has its own secret laws. Everything that disturbs them has its cost. The closer people reach nature's truth, the further it eludes (躲避) them. When scientists find the cure for a disease, something worse appears to terrify mankind.

Additionally, think about how much war has changed because of technology. People do not fight hand to hand any more – they fight from a distance; technology makes this possible. Fighting face to face needs some values which do not exist in the case where someone presses a button and directs the modern means.

The problem is certainly not technology, but the direction we have finally given to it. When man has no values, technology cannot be controlled any more. When man has values, technology serves him.

Technology is neither good nor bad. It depends on how we use it. I strongly believe that it is time for us to understand that the responsibility belongs exclusively to humans who have to acquire a social conscience, to respect human beings, nature and its balances.




The Rainbow of Knowledge
The acquisition of knowledge is self-contradictory by nature. The more one knows, the more he knows how little he knows. Reading often leads to more questions than answers. Writing opens things up rather than closes them off. The author of the following essay regards truth as a rainbow that cannot be really grasped. He urges us to be humble about what we don't know as we pride ourselves on what we know.
Craig Russell

For more than 3/4 of my life – 39 of my 50 years – I've either studied or taught in a school or a college in New York.

You might think, then, that after all this time I'd have some grasp of the situation, that I'd actually know things – that I'd have some positive sense of assurance, of certainty, about knowledge and about life. But I don't. In fact, the more I know, the more I know I don't know.

To say that the more I know, the more I know I don't know is, of course, contradictory. But then, modern physics tells us that reality itself is contradictory. The more scientists look into our physical reality, the more it slips away from them. In a way, the more they learn, the less they know.

Knowledge itself is contradictory. For example, picture your knowledge as a dot, as perhaps the period at the end of this sentence. Notice the tiny circumference of that period, and let that repr
esent the interface of the known with the unknown – in other words, your awareness of what you don't know.

But now imagine that little period growing, its blackness consuming more and more of the page. As it grows, so does its circumference. And if that growing blackness represents knowledge, then as it grows, so does the awareness of what remains unknown. In other words, the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

No doubt you have experienced this yourself in your own personal quests for knowledge. At first, you don't even know a field of learning exists. It's been there all along, of course; you just haven't noticed it before. When I got my first computer in 1988, I walked down to the magazine store, hoping to find something about computing and was amazed at the number of choices. Likewise, when I lucked into an opportunity to teach film analysis, I found myself dazzled at the sheer number of books devoted to the subject.

Let's say you decide to learn about this topic. You buy one of these books, the best and most complete one you can find (or so you think), or perhaps you borrow it from the library. But you quickly find that your reading, rather than answering questions, only creates more of them.

Earlier this year, for example, I not only had no idea that I had any interest at all in the relationship of technology to freedom; I didn't even realize that a connection between them might exist. So I started reading books and became more and more aware of the relationship between technology and freedom. Then, on the one hand, I now know much more about this topic than I did a few short months ago. But on the other hand, all this reading has made me see how little I really know and how much more I need to read and think and write. Once I've finished reading a book, I always feel that I need to read three more to gain a better grasp of the topic. And I think and write at the same time. In fact, it is my writing that has led me into it. We think often that only people who know and who are sure of themselves write. For me, however, it's just the opposite. Writing doesn't close things off – it opens things up.

For a long time, I, as a writer, was paralyzed by this paradox – the more I know, the more I know I don't know. I was very aware of the teaching from Taoism that said "those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know." I wasn't sure I should write at all, and, even if I did, I didn't believe that I was qualified to do it. I always felt I had to know more first. It took me a long time not to let this paradox freeze me and to believe that it was my writing that would qualify my knowledge, and not the other way around. I think of my work not as articles or as columns but as essays – a word from French, meaning "to try". I do not know truth. I only try to find it.

I don't mean, of course, to suggest that we should not learn, or that we should not read and write and think and talk. I do not mean to sug
gest that we should not try. An infinite quest is not a hopeless one. I only suggest that an understanding will inevitably and doubtlessly lead us away from the force and rigidity of dogmatism and toward the flexibility and freedom of the individual. As Taoism teaches, "the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death. The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life."

We must temper our pride in knowing with the humility of not knowing. The truth, as they say, is out there, but, maybe, like the rainbow, we can never really grasp it, never hold it in our hands and truly know it. We can only, as William James said, "live today by what truth we can get today and be ready to call it falsehood tomorrow."




Barriers to Knowledge Transfer
We now have easy access to more information than what we ever possibly dreamed of. Huge amounts of data move around the globe at incredible speed. Yet, knowledge transfer requires more than just technology. Lack of trust and resistance to change are the two major barriers to knowledge transfer.
Victoria Griffith

Everyone is talking about the "knowledge era" these days. Yet what is knowledge? It is a vague concept. Most of us feel knowledge must be more than just data. My two-year-old will tell you that the first president of the United States was George Washington, and that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. But does she really "know" anything about these men, or art and politics in general? Of course not. Computers, while they excel in performing certain tasks, such as booking airline seats or sorting out bank accounts, are bad at things that come naturally to human beings, such as understanding emotion. But, if knowledge is not pure data, is it experience? Experience is certainly important. It is impossible to learn to ride a bike, for example, simply by hearing someone talk unceasingly about data on the process.

Yet experience alone is not knowledge, either. The ancients experienced the sun rising and setting every day, for instance, but did not know the earth was moving around the sun. They saw people die of various diseases, but had no idea how to prevent such deaths. Knowledge, then, is both experience and information. In the United States, educators battle over the best way to form young minds. Some people believe children should learn facts, such as where the country of Morocco is located. Others believe children should learn how to discover things, like being able to use a map to discover where Morocco is located. In reality, children need to be able to do both. A wise person is one who can combine facts with know-how. Knowledge is a purely human trait because it includes experience.

Unfortunately, humans, the sole vessels of knowledge, are very inefficient at passing it along from one brain to another. In seconds, computers can transfer large quantities of data from one terminal to another. Knowledge is far more difficult to move. There are two major barriers to know
ledge transfer: lack of trust and resistance to change. Human beings seem rather stubborn. They only absorb knowledge readily from people they know and trust. In the early 1600s, Galileo argued that the earth and other planets move around the sun. Not only was the knowledge rejected by the general population, but Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest for his ideas. The Italians three centuries ago trusted the Roman Catholic Church more than they trusted Galileo, so the knowledge transfer was stopped in its tracks.

At times, cultural and language barriers can elevate distrust to such an extent that an exchange of knowledge becomes almost impossible. In 1992, the U.S. National Weather Service predicted devastating rains along the coast of Brazil. The American scientists made little effort to pass the information to Brazil, however. Perhaps they thought it was not their responsibility, or perhaps they believed the Brazilian scientists had known the situation. While some Brazilian forecasters saw the U.S. bulletins, they failed to pass the information to the public. Perhaps they doubted the accuracy of these reports, or perhaps they did not realize the danger at hand. In any case, the knowledge failed to transfer, and dozens of people died unnecessarily.

Human beings are resistant to change – another major barrier to knowledge transfer. The management theorist Peter Drucker once argued that this very resistance eventually undermines most corporations. New knowledge is always emerging, so to be successful, people must constantly live in a chaotic, changing world, constantly questioning past practices. When this does not happen, the organization collapses. Thus, Digital Equipment Corporation, the once-great computer company, failed to understand and act on knowledge that the personal computer would replace the mainframe (中央处理机). The corporation faltered and was eventually bought by a relative newcomer to the industry – Compaq.

Workers at a Mobil Oil Corporation plant a few years ago came up with a better way to refine oil. The new process saved millions of dollars, and the workers expected it would be readily adopted by its other plants. So they sent a report to the managers of other refineries, explaining the process. Nothing happened. Mobil senior executives took up the issue and sent their own letter out to the managers. Only between ten and twenty percent of the factories installed the new process. So Mobil made a video, interviewing people about the process and explaining how much money it saved. After two years, just 38 percent of the corporation's oil refineries had complied (服从) with the change. Mobil asked why. The most common response was: "It may have worked there, but it won't work here." Lack of trust and resistance to change undermined the knowledge transfer.

As is seen from the above examples, human beings seem accustomed to learning from personal contact with others. Some even p
redicted the Internet would reduce travel; however, cyberspace actually appears to have boosted it. That is because many of the basic elements of knowledge transfer are possible mainly through personal contact. Computers and digital communications, while they cannot accomplish knowledge transfer themselves, can ease the way. They can, for instance, put us in touch with experts or colleagues with a shared interest in a specific field. Digital networks might also provide us with reliable data from which to draw conclusions. Yet true knowledge transfer is a human phenomenon, limited by the problems of the human condition – lack of trust and resistance to change. Because it is so difficult, knowledge transfer will continue to be a tough problem, even as we move into the "knowledge era".




Work, Labor, and Play
We go to work every day and we think we are workers. However, after reading Auden's discussion about work, labor, and play, the majority of us may find that we are no longer "workers". What are we then?
Wystan H. Auden

So far as I know, Miss Hannah Arendt was the first person to define the essential difference between work and labor. To be happy, a man must feel, firstly, free and, secondly, important. He cannot be really happy if he is compelled by society to do what he does not enjoy doing, or if what he enjoys doing is ignored by society as of no value or importance. In a society where slavery in the strict sense has been abolished, whether what a man does has social value depends on whether he is paid money to do it, but a laborer today can rightly be called a wage slave. A man is a laborer if the job society offers him is of no interest to himself but he is compelled to take it by the necessity of earning a living and supporting his family.

The opposite to labor is play. When we play a game, we enjoy what we are doing, otherwise we should not play it, but it is a purely private activity; society could not care less whether we play it or not.

Between labor and play stands work. A man is a worker if he is personally interested in the job which society pays him to do; what from the point of view of society is necessary labor is from his own point of view voluntary play. Whether a job is to be classified as labor or work depends, not on the job itself, but on the tastes of the individual who undertakes it. The difference does not, for example, coincide with the difference between a manual and a mental job; a gardener or a cobbler may be a worker, a bank clerk a laborer. Which a man is can be seen from his attitude toward leisure. To a worker, leisure means simply the hours he needs to relax and rest in order to work efficiently. He is therefore more likely to take too little leisure than too much; workers die of heart attacks and forget their wives' birthdays. To the laborer, on the other hand, leisure means freedom from compulsion, so that it is natural for him to imagine that the fewer hours he has to spend labor
ing, and the more hours he is free to play, the better.

What percentage of the population in a modern technological society are, like myself, in the fortunate position of being workers? At a guess I would say sixteen per cent, and I do not think that figure is likely to get bigger in the future.

Technology and the division of labor have done two things: by eliminating in many fields the need for special strength or skill, they have made a very large number of paid occupations which formerly were enjoyable work into boring labor, and by increasing productivity they have reduced the number of necessary laboring hours. It is already possible to imagine a society in which the majority of the population, that is to say, its laborers, will have almost as much leisure as in earlier times was enjoyed by the aristocracy. When one recalls how aristocracies in the past actually behaved, the prospect is not cheerful. Indeed, the problem of dealing with boredom may be even more difficult for such a future mass society than it was for aristocracies. The latter, for example, ritualized their time; there was a season to shoot grouse, a season to spend in town, etc. The masses are more likely to replace an unchanging ritual by fashion which changes as often as possible in the economic interest of certain people. Again, the masses cannot go in for hunting, for very soon there would be no animals left to hunt. For other aristocratic amusements like gambling, dueling, and warfare, it may be only too easy to find equivalents in dangerous driving, drug-taking, and senseless acts of violence. Workers seldom commit acts of violence, because they can put their aggression into their work, be it physical like the work of a smith, or mental like the work of a scientist or an artist. The role of aggression in mental work is aptly expressed by the phrase "getting one's teeth into a problem".




Choosing an Occupation or Career
Choosing an occupation is an important decision. When making a decision such as this, it is essential to look critically at yourself, and examine your values, interests, abilities, etc. The following text provides you with some insightful advice on the factors worth considering when choosing an occupation or career.
Gerald Corey

What do you expect from work? What factors do you give the most attention to in selecting a career or an occupation? In my work at a university counseling center I've discovered that many students haven't really thought seriously about why they are choosing a given vocation. For some, parental pressure or encouragement is the major reason for their choice. Others have idealized views of what it will be like to be a lawyer, engineer, or doctor. Many people I've counseled regarding career decisions haven't looked at what they value the most and whether these values can be attained in their chosen vocation. In choosing your vocation or evaluating the choices you've made previously, you may want to consid
famous. But, unfortunately, for most people failure is the end of their struggle, not the beginning. There are few, if any, famous failures.

Well then, why does anyone want fame? Do you? Do you want to be known to many people and admired by them? Do you want the money that usually comes with fame? Do you want the media to notice everything you do or say both in public and in private? In some areas it is very obvious that to be famous is to be the target of everyone who disagrees with you as well as of the media. Fame turns all the lights on and while it gives power and reputation, it takes the you out of you: you must be what the public thinks you are, not what you really are or could be. But why does anyone want fame? Several reasons come to mind: to demonstrate excellence in some field; to gain the admiration and love of many others; to be the one everyone talks about; to show family and friends you are more than they thought you were. Probably you can list some other reasons, but I think these are reasonably common.

I say to those who desperately seek fame and fortune, celebrity: good luck. But what will you do when you have caught your tail, your success, your fame? Keep chasing it? If you do catch it, hang onfor dear life. See you soon famous and almost famous!




The Right Kind of Success
It is hard to be successful and even harder to achieve true and lasting success. You may have a new understanding of success after reading the following text about the right kind of success and its three attributes.
John C. Bogle

Good afternoon and congratulations to each one of you for having the brains, the courage, and the determination to earn your bachelor's degree from this great American university. You have earned the right to at least a few moments of pride, and I know that your families, here supporting you today, are proud as well.

Doubtless most of you will soon be entering the world of business, seeking success in whatever careers you find your calling. So I'd like to spend a few moments reflecting on what we mean by success, and how we measure it. To be frank, I think that achieving the right kind of success is a far loftier (崇高的) goal than would be suggested by its conventional definition.

When I graduated from Princeton University, I sought "success", and its going definition then – "wealth, fame and power" – seemed reasonable enough to me. While a half-century-plus has passed since then, I see little reason to believe that wealth, fame, and power do not remain the three main attributes of success, but not in the conventional way in which I defined them all those years ago. I have come to realize that wealth is ill-measured by using mere dollars; that fame is ill-measured by public notoriety (恶名); and that power is ill-measured solely by control over others.

Financial wealth, in fact, is a shallow measure of success. If we accept dollars as our standard, then "money is the measure
of the man", and what could be more foolish than that? So how should wealth be measured? What about a life well-lived? What about a family closely bound by love? Who could be wealthier than a man or woman whose calling provides benefits to mankind, or to fellow citizens, or even to a community or neighborhood?

It is not that money doesn't matter. Who among us would not seek resources sufficient to fully enjoy our life and liberty? The security of freedom from want, the ability to pursue our chosen careers, the tuition to educate our children. But how much wealth does that require?

Fame, too, is a flawed measure of success. It certainly is the great ego-builder of our age. But from what source, and to what avail (好处)? The fleeting fame of our sports heroes and the glittering fame of our entertainers give us the joy of seeing human beings at the very peak of their potential, but in the fast-paced world of today, much of that glow rarely lasts very long. Fame for real accomplishment is one thing, but fame that is ill-deserved, and fame that is used for base purposes are quite different things. And please never forget that many – indeed most – of those who make the greatest contributions to the daily working of our society never experience even a moment of fame.

And that brings us to power. Sure, power to run an enterprise is a thrill, and power over the person and power over the corporate purse are fun. But when power is used carelessly and arbitrarily, society as a whole is the loser.

What we ought to respect is power for a worthy purpose – the power of the intellect (智力), the power of morality, the power to enable the people with whom we work to grow in skill and spirit alike; power that assures respect for the humblest to the highest souls who dedicate themselves to an enterprise; power to help one's fellow man. That's power worth seeking.

So what are we to make of all of these mixed measures of success? Perhaps the famed economist Joseph Schumpeter can help. Ambitious people are driven, he suggested, by "the joy of creating, of getting things done, of simply exercising one's energy and ingenuity (足智多谋); and by the will to conquer, the impulse to fight, to succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of success" – i.e. wealth, fame, and power – "but of success itself".

Such success cannot be measured in monetary (金钱的) terms, nor in terms of the amount of power one may exercise over others, nor in the illusory fame of inevitably short-lived public notice. But it can be measured in our contributions to building a better world, in helping our fellow man, in bringing up children who themselves become loving human beings and good citizens.

In this quest, those of us who select business as our calling carry a special burden. For in our society today it is in business and finance that the most people make the most money, hold the most power, and enjoy an astonishing level of fame. So, as you go out
into the dog-eat-dog competitive arena (竞技场) of commerce, earn the right kind of success, maintaining your values, your ethics, and your integrity.

In today's business world, I fear, our leaders have sought the wrong kind of success, and indeed have too often engaged in over-reaching what is unethical and often illegal.

For your generation, our failure is your opportunity – the opportunity of a lifetime. We're all in the human race together, and those of us who are lucky enough to earn a good living through our business careers must, as we run the long race of a life well lived, do our best to serve our fellow men.

For half a century plus, business has been my calling. As I continue that long journey, I strive to define success by the right kinds of wealth, fame, and power. In the coming era in which the opportunities are infinite, I hope for each of you those same kinds of success. Go out and make business your calling; go out and seek the right kind of success. In these troubled times, you can help to build a better world.




Two Truths to Live By
Life is a long journey. Some walk with joy and fulfilment, others with bitterness and regret. If you could live by the two truths discussed in the following essay, your journey would be more meaningful and rewarding.
Alexander M. Schindler

The art of living is to know when to hold fast and when to let go. An ancient man said long ago: "A man comes to this world with his fist clenched, but when he dies, his hand is open."

Surely we ought to hold fast to life, for it is wonderful, and full of a beauty. We know that this is so, but all too often we recognize this truth only in our backward glance when we remember what it was and then suddenly realize that it is no more.

We remember a beauty that faded, a love that withered. But we remember with far greater pain that we did not see that beauty when it flowered, that we failed to respond with love when it was tendered.

A recent experience re-taught me this truth. I was hospitalized following a severe heart attack and had been in intensive care for several days. It was not a pleasant place.

One morning, I had to have some additional tests. The required machines were located in a building at the opposite end of the hospital, so I had to be wheeled across the courtyard in a chair. As we emerged from our unit, the sunlight hit me. That's all there was to my experience. Just the light of the sun. And yet how beautiful it was – how warming; how sparkling; how brilliant!

I looked to see whether anyone else relished the sun's golden glow, but everyone was hurrying to and fro, most with eyes fixed on the ground. Then I remembered how often I, too, had been indifferent to the grandeur of each day, too preoccupied with petty and sometimes even mean concerns to respond to the great beauty of it all.

The insight gleaned from that experience is really as commonplace as was the experience itself: life's g
thers, exercise diligence and endurance, look beyond life's rewards, and devote ourselves to a selfless cause.
Barbara Hatcher

Several years ago I received a post card from a friend in Jackson Hole, Wyo., who wrote, "I am skiing with abandon!" I wondered what he meant, for when I ski it is always with anxiety and fear. I believe he meant he was skiing skillfully, joyfully, peacefully and confidently. Although I have no hopes of ever skiing that way, I do dream of living with abandon. I believe that men and women through the ages who have led successful lives have captured these five secrets of living life to the fullest.

1. Have a self you respect. This means having a deep sense of responsibility for your thoughts and actions. It means keeping your word, and being faithful to yourself, family and work. It means believing in what you do and working hard. It means setting your own internal standards, and not comparing yourself to others. It's not a question of being better than someone else; respect and integrity demand that you be better than you thought you could be.

Winston Churchill exemplified integrity and respect in the face of opposition. During his last year in office, he attended an official ceremony. Several rows behind him two gentlemen began whispering: "That's Winston Churchill." "They say he is getting old." "They say he should step aside and leave the running of the nation to more dynamic and capable men." When the ceremony was over, Churchill turned to the men and said, "Gentlemen, they also say he is deaf!"

Churchill knew that one secret to a self you can respect is to choose a course of action based on what is right, and not waver (犹豫) from it when criticized.

2. Commit yourself to others. Believe in others, and take time to nurture their dreams. A wise man said, "If you want one year's prosperity, grow grain. But if you want ten years' prosperity, grow men and women."

You can build into the lives of your family, friends and colleagues by providing nutrients (营养品) of gratitude and encouragement, and by investing your time and energy in their aspirations. If a tree is given minimal nourishment, it will live, but it will not grow. But if nourishment is given over and beyond what is needed for life, the tree will live and grow upward, producing fruit.

3. Turn disappointments into strengths. Individuals who live with abandon have discovered that personal trials make them more sensitive and loving, while building endurance and character. They have learned that achievements worth remembering are accompanied with the blood of diligence (勤奋) and the scars of disappointment.

The pages of history are filled with the heroic stories of brave men and women who triumphed over disabilities and adversities to demonstrate victorious spirits. Raise him in poverty, and you have an Abraham Lincoln. Make her blind and deaf, and you have a Helen Keller.

4. Enjoy life's process, not just life's
rewards. We live in a goal-oriented society that wants problems resolved now. We want three-minute fast food, one-hour dry cleaning, and instant success. But to live with abandon, we must live one day at a time, savoring the little victories, realizing that life is an endless journey in self-discovery and personal fulfillment. It means taking time to hug your kids, kiss your spouse and let the other fellow ahead of you on the freeway.

"I was one of those people who never go anywhere without a thermometer, hot water bottle, raincoat and parachute (降落伞)," wrote author Don Herold. "If I had my life to live over, I would go barefoot earlier in the spring. I would ride more merry-go-rounds (旋转木马). I would take more chances, and I would eat more ice cream."

5. Become involved in something bigger than yourself. I do not believe you will live happily if you set out to live life for yourself alone. Choose a cause bigger than you are and work at it in a spirit of excellence. It will become a part of you as you see your goals through to the end. Measure success not by what you've done, but what you could do.




Stripping Down to Bare Happiness
Here is a story of two people whose rebellion against the trend of the modern world went all the way. As Linda Weltner reports, Sara and Michael decided that the world was too much with them, and that they could live much happier lives without the myths of consumerism and the thrownaway mentality. One wonders just how many of us could make such a drastic change in our lifestyle.
Linda Weltner

"What we're talking about is simplification, not deprivation," explains Sara, a friend of mine. "It isn't that you can't do all the things you like, but you change. You don't like them anymore. Some of the old habits seem so wasteful and unsatisfying that you really lose your taste for them. So you still have everything you want – only on less money."

When I first met them, Sara and Michael were a two-career couple with a home of their own, and a large boat bought with a large loan. They began to take an interest in the concept of "voluntary simplicity" with the birth of their daughter whom they wanted to raise all by themselves. Neither one of them, it turned out, was willing to restrict what they considered their "real life" into the brief time before work and the tired hours afterward.

"A lot of people think that as they have children and things get more expensive, the only answer is to work harder in order to earn more money. It's not the only answer," insists Michael.

The couple's decision was to trade two full-time careers for two half-time careers, and to curtail consumption. They decided to spend their money only on things that contributed to their major goal, the construction of a world where family and friendship, work and play, were all of a piece, a world, moreover, which did not make wasteful use of the earth's resources.

Today, they live in the same sub
urban community in a handsome, energy-efficient home they designed themselves. Small by most standards, it is easy to clean, furnish, maintain and heat. The first floor, one large room, has a kitchen area along one wall, a birch table and chairs for dining, a living area defined by a comfortable couch and a wood stove, and a corner work area. Upstairs is their bedroom, an office that serves them both, and a bathroom. It is bright and light and in harmony with its surroundings. Soon there will be a solar greenhouse outside the front door.

How can a couple with two part-time freelance jobs afford to build their own home, own a car, and share a small boat with another couple – all without a loan? How can they maintain a high standard of living that provides "everything" they want? What is it they have given up that they do not miss?

For one thing, they have given up all the expensive clutter – medicine cabinets full of cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs they will never use; kitchen cabinets crowded with items they would eventually throw away. The one clothes closet Sara shares with Michael easily contains the basic items in their wardrobes, many of them well-made classic styles from L. L. Bean. "I'm constantly giving things away," Sara explains. By sifting and discarding, by keeping track of what they have, Sara and Michael have a clear idea of what they really need.

They do not have a dishwasher. The number of hand-thrown pottery dishes they own would not fill one. They do not own a clothes dryer; the wet clothes, drying indoors in winter, eliminate the need for a humidifier. Sara's dark hair is short. She does not need a hairdryer, electric curlers, or a curling iron. Their front yard is wooded. They do not need a power mower or electric clippers. They do not own a TV, and so they and their child are not constantly saturated with images of new toys, new things, and new temptations.

They have exchanged the expenses of work in a commuter age – the extra car, the cost of gasoline, professional wardrobes, lunches and frequent dinners out, and babysitting fees – or the time to pay attention to the quality of their lives. They have given up paper products, processed foods, expensive hobbies, first-run movies, restaurants, and paying for the services of others. In return, they enjoy home cooking, mid-week family picnics, library books, participation in community arts programs, thrift shops, and do-it-yourself projects.

"That yearning feeling that's so much a part of this culture goes on forever," says Sara. "But it doesn't matter if you're making ＄15,000 or ＄50,000. There'll always be the things you wish you could afford. Money really wasn't the reason we changed. We did it for our own personal satisfaction, and for anyone thinking of simplifying life, there is only one basic rule: If it isn't satisfying, don't do it."

Sara and Michael lent me their copy of 99 Ways to a Simple Lifestyle, a handbook of practical sug
gestions that can be applied to anyone's living situation. I read it carefully, giving myself high marks in some areas, surprised at my socially sanctioned irrational behavior in others.

That night, accompanying my daughter on a shopping trip, I came across an inexpensive hand towel that matched our kitchen wallpaper, and a pair of "bargain" sandals too handsome to resist. When I stood in the parking lot, $$11 poorer, no happier on leaving the store than I had been entering it, I felt like a child, helpless in the face of my own impulses.

It is a world of illusion, this shopping merry-go-round we ride, but with all the action and excitement, it is sometimes hard to find the resolve and the courage to dismount.




My Frugal Life
Tired of working just for the luxuries of life, the author, an ordinary woman living in Southwest Missouri by the name of Ronsan, quit her job and started a simpler lifestyle. She gave a detailed description of how she succeeded in adjusting to her new lifestyle and felt content with it.


When I was in my early 50s, I began to question the lifestyle my husband and I were living. I longed for a simpler lifestyle: I knew I wanted less stress; I knew I was tired of working just for the luxuries of life.

The most reasonable and surest way to achieve my goal was to just quit the corporate world for good, and then deal with the aftermath (后果) in a very positive way. Yes, it was something that many people wouldn't be able to handle, but with my husband's support and the knowledge that I would be the one handling "the aftermath", I quit the corporate world, and then never looked back with regret.

After taking the first two weeks to just rest, recuperate (恢复) and think, I began listing on paper all the changes that needed to be made, which included carefully guarding the resources that my husband continued to bring into our lives as well as finding new channels for producing income or additional resources based on what we already had.

Some decisions were just plain easy, such as canceling a standing weekly appointment at the beauty salon (美容院) for hair and a manicure (修指甲) or eating out numerous nights a week because there was no time to fix meals, but even then, I knew this was only the tip of the iceberg.

The first major decision was to sell our home, which was way too big and costly for the two of us. Two people who want a simpler lifestyle don't need or want a splendid home with four bedrooms, four bathrooms. The 3,000+ sq. ft. house sold relatively quickly, and we moved into a much smaller house still within convenient driving distance of my husband's employment. Then I began the task of downsizing our possessions. That was perhaps the most sizeable job of all, and required several garage and consignment (寄售) sales.

After we moved came the adjustment period of being content and happy in a smaller home, and that did take us some time getting used to. M
y husband could care less what type of house we lived in, but I had initial difficulty because nothing "fit" properly according to my former lifestyle. As I worked through the process of making each room or space as functional and comfortable as possible, I found I still had too many possessions. A smaller home means fewer possessions, which means less to clean and take care of! I established the rule that I had to be able to see all three walls of any cupboard or closet to avoid clutter or unnecessary stuff.

Simultaneously, I began to tackle the financial problems of not having a significant savings program in the past years. I came to realize that I might waste our financial resources by not being careful enough as to how I used them. I found that if I minded the pennies, the dollars would take care of themselves. I cut out all the unnecessary spending I could because I wanted to make sure I didn't have to re-enter the job market again.

I realized I only needed two pair of jeans – one for everyday and a good pair. I needed only two or three pairs of shoes, one casual jacket and one dressy coat, etc.

I realized I didn't need magazine subscriptions (订阅) or daily newspapers because with the Internet and a television, I could meet my needs without unnecessary costs.

I realized that if I saved daily change instead of carrying it in my purse and then spending it, I could control the amount of money dribbling (零星地散出) out of my hands. Each month, I would then roll the change and bank it in our savings account.

I realized that we didn't need two cars if I planned my errands well enough. Eliminating one vehicle also eliminates payments, fuel, licensing, taxes, etc.!

I realized we didn't need more than one credit card. I realized that paying cash for everyday expenses such as gasoline was more frugal than having to write out checks or to get a credit card bill paid.

I realized that if I could contain the outflow (外流) of money on credit cards as well as daily living expenses, I could much better control how much of that money stayed in my pocket, thereby lessening expenses each month. Credit cards breed carelessness in me when it comes to handling money and yet cold, hard cash in my hand is likely to stay in my hand!

I realized we didn't need to be spending up to one thousand dollars on gifts and holiday functions each year for friends and family members, but with careful planning and an attentive eye towards sales throughout the year, we could meet those needs just as nicely at a fraction of the cost.

Today, our lifestyle is very simple, very frugal but not stingy (吝啬的) towards us or the things we want to do. Our expectations of what we "need" in this life are separated out from our "wants", and we know the difference. We are now devoid (没有···的) of undue stress and anxieties in our life, and we are happier than we have ever been. We have a financial plan by which we can live comfo
rtably and we know our future is as secure as we can make it. We look forward to each new day as a blessing.




The Story of an Hour
Life is unpredictable. It often plays tricks on us and surprises us with unexpected endings. In this story, Mrs. Mallard reacted with sadness at the news of her husband's death in a train accident, and then locked herself up in her room, where she seemed to be waiting fearfully for something that she felt was coming to her. What was it?
Kate Chopin

(1)Knowing that Mrs. Mallard was afflicted with a heart trouble, great care was taken to break to her as gently as possible the news of her husband's death.

It was her sister Josephine who told her, in broken sentences; veiled hints that revealed in half concealing. Her husband's friend Richards was there, too, near her. It was he who had been in the newspaper office when intelligence of the railroad disaster was received, with Brently Mallard's name leading the list of "killed".He had only taken the time to assure himself of its truth by a second telegram, and had hastened to prevent any less careful, less tender friend in bearing the sad message.

She did not hear the story as many women have heard the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance. She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister's arms. When the storm of grief had spent itself she went away to her room alone. She would have no one follow her.

There stood, facing the open window, a comfortable, roomy armchair. Into this she sank, pressed down by a physical exhaustion that haunted her body and seemed to reach into her soul.

She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all full of the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song reached her faintly, and countless birds were singing.

There were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds that had met and piled one above the other in the west facing her window.

She sat with her head thrown back upon the cushion of the chair, quite motionless, except when a sob came up into her throat and shook her, as a child who has cried itself to sleep continues to sob in its dreams.

She was young, with a fair, calm face, whose lines betrayed repression and even a certain strength. But now there was a dull stare in her eyes, whose gaze was fixed on one of those patches of blue sky. It was not a glance of reflection, but rather indicated a suspension of intelligent thought.

(2)There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully. What was it? She did not know; it was too subtle and vague to name. But she felt it, creeping out of the sky, reaching toward her through the sounds, the scents, the color that filled the air.

Now her bosom rose and fell impulsively. She was beginning to recognize this thing that was approachi
ng to possess her, and she was striving to beat it back with her will – as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been.

When she abandoned herself a little whispered word escaped her slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under her breath: "free, free, free!" The vacant stare and the look of terror that had followed it went from her eyes. They stayed keen and bright. Her pulses beat fast, and the running blood warmed and relaxed every inch of her body.

She did not stop to ask if it were or were not a monstrous joy that held her. A clear and exalted perception enabled her to dismiss her husband's death as trivial.

She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; the face that had never looked save with love upon her, fixed and gray and dead. But she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely. And she opened and spread her arms out to them in welcome.

There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.

And yet she had loved him – sometimes. Often she had not. What did it matter! What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in face of this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being!

"Free! Body and soul free!" she kept whispering.

Josephine was kneeling before the closed door with her lips to the keyhole, begging for admission. "Louise, open the door! I beg, open the door – you will make yourself ill. What are you doing Louise? For heaven's sake open the door."

(3)"Go away. I am not making myself ill." No; she was drinking in a very elixir of life through that open window.

Her fancy was running riot along those days ahead of her. Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own. She breathed a quick prayer that life might be long. It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long.

She arose at length and opened the door. There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself like a goddess of Victory. She clasped her sister's waist, and together they descended the stairs. Richards stood waiting for them at the bottom.

Someone was opening the front door with a key. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little travel-stained, carrying his briefcase and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of the accident, and did not even know there had been one. He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richards' quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife.

But Richards was too late.

When the doctors came they sa
id she had died of heart disease – of joy that kills.




One Thin Dime
We are all familiar with the famous proverb "Honesty is the best policy." The two young men in the following story were born in poor families and later succeeded in their respective careers. How did they pull through their difficulties? Did they only chance their luck? If not, what did they rely on?
Patricia S. Laye

One day recently I visited a businessman's office, and while we talked, I noticed that he constantly twirled (转动) a small paperweight (镇纸) with a dime in it. Curious, I asked him about it.

He said, "When I was in college, my roommate and I were down to our last dime. He was on a scholarship, while I had earned my tuition by working in the cotton field and a grocery store. We were the first two members of our families to ever attend college, and our parents were extremely proud of us. Each month they sent us a small allowance to buy food, but that month our checks hadn't arrived. It was a Sunday, the fifth of the month, and between us we had one dime left.

"We used the solitary dime to place a collect call to my home five hundred miles away. My mother answered. I could tell from her voice that something was wrong. She said that my father had been ill and out of work, so there was simply no way they could send any money that month. I asked if my roommate's check was in the mail. She said that she had talked with his mother. They also couldn't raise the extra money that month either. They were sorry, but it looked like we'd have to come home. They had put off telling us, hoping for some solution."

"Were you disappointed?" I asked.

"Devastated (极度痛苦的). We both were. We had one month remaining to finish the year, then we could work all summer to earn our expenses. My grades were excellent, so I had been guaranteed a scholarship for the next term."

"What did you do?"

"When I hung up the telephone, we heard a noise and dimes started pouring out of the pay phone. We were laughing and holding out our hands to catch the money. Students walking down the hall thought we were crazy. We discussed taking the money and using it. Nobody would know what happened. But then we realized we couldn't do that. It wouldn't be honest. You understand?"

"Yes, but it would have been tough to return it."

"Well, we tried. I called the operator back and told her what had happened." He smiled. "I remember she said that the money belonged to the telephone company and asked us to replace it in the machine. We did, over and over again, but the machine wouldn't accept the dimes."

"I finally told the operator that the dimes kept falling back out. She said that she didn't know what else to do, but she'd talk to her supervisor. When she returned she said that we'd have to keep the money, because the company wasn't going to send a man all the way out to the school just to collect a few dollars."

He looked over at me and chuckl
ed (低声轻笑), but there was emotion in his voice. "We laughed all the way back to our dorm room. After counting the money, we had ＄7.20. We decided to use the money to buy food from a nearby grocery store and we went job hunting after class."

"Did you find a job?"

"Yes, we told the manager of the grocery store what had happened as we paid for our purchases with our dimes. He offered both us jobs beginning next day. Our money bought enough supplies to last until our first paycheck."

"You were both able to finish college?"

"Yes, we worked for that man until we graduated. My friend went on to eventually become a lawyer." He looked around him and said, "I graduated in business, then went on to start this company which today is a multi-million-dollar corporation. My own children have attended college, as have my roommate's, but we were the first."

"Is that one of your original dimes?"

He shook his head. "No, we had to use those, but when I got my first paycheck I saved a dime, which I carried all the way through college. I've kept it to remind me where I came from. When I count my blessings, I remember that once in my life, a single thin dime stood between me and the poverty my parents faced every day of their lives."

"Did you ever meet the telephone operator or tell her how much that money meant to you?"

"No, but when we graduated, my roommate and I wrote a letter to the local telephone company and asked if they wanted their money back.

"The president of the company wrote us a letter of congratulations and told us that he'd never felt the company's money was better spent."

"Do you think this was a fluke (幸运) or meant to be?"

"I've thought about it often over the years. I wondered if the operator might have heard the fear in my voice; perhaps she prevented the machine from accepting the coins. Or maybe… it was an act of God."

"You'll never know for sure, will you?"

He shook his head, touching the paperweight as if he drew strength from it. "No, but I'll always remember that moment and the dimes. I have repaid that debt many times over the years. I hope that I have helped someone else as much as a dime helped me."

罗马法的影响-碧空如洗的意思

红领巾的来历和意义-苟且是什么意思

优裕的意思-慧眼识

优裕的意思-料峭的意思

未见其人先闻其声-训政

还原糖的测定-忿然

晕的拼音-啾怎么读

背心的英文-颠覆的意思