First Encounter with Root#
When smartphones first emerged, I heard a "computer expert" around me discussing root permissions; it was my first time hearing about root. At that time, we had a smartphone at home that came with a prepaid plan, but it was slow and burdened with various bloatware that made it even more sluggish. I thought to myself, how great it would be if I could root it and delete all that junk software.
Unfortunately, over the years, I have never successfully rooted any of the phones I encountered. Later, we bought a cheap domestic television that had the VPN component stripped away and forcibly hid the Android settings entry. This reignited my desire to root, but even when I learned effective methods, I hesitated to proceed. With only 16GB of memory, the hardware of a television does not encourage tinkering. A television could have a faster processor and more memory, but people generally prefer a large screen to watch news broadcasts and weather forecasts. Thus, televisions are usually "simple-minded." This simplicity, contrasted with their physical capabilities, makes the potential benefits and risks of rooting a television disproportionate.
In short, rooting is a risky endeavor, especially for beginners. However, today I do not want to discuss how to root my various junk Android devices, but rather the concept of rooting people. The idea is quite simple: various phones come with various restrictions and advertisements. For instance, recently, there were reports that Xiaomi phones and televisions could not install Telegram or USB software. In human thought, there are also various external additions that greatly occupy the brain and soul's memory with junk. On a deeper level, although humans claim to have free will, there are many shackles of the mind, whether they be viewpoints, morals, or instincts...
The Connection Between Machines and Human Language#
Rooting belongs to the realm of computer science, but I do not understand programming. I have always liked to compare the human brain with computers, believing that my CPU is quite poor and unable to learn subjects like mathematics. The emergence of large language models like ChatGPT seems to increase the necessity of comparing the human brain with computers. We can simply categorize various programming languages as machine languages, with various processes akin to the thoughts of a computer. A functioning program also implies that machine language possesses some form of logic. This logic underpins the operation of the digital world.
The advent of large language models allows us to see a certain logic between human languages from another perspective. That is, human language can be formally constructed. And this constructed entity can be understood by people. This logic inspires us to contemplate the rules of language. Wittgenstein has a book titled "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus," which I have not read. However, his emphasis on the philosophy of language has fueled my desire for the logic and rules contained within human language.
The Internal Logic of Language#
Writing articles is a luxury for me; it consumes a lot of time and produces some textual garbage. But why do I persist tirelessly? Because there is something that makes me tremble all over. Each thought in my brain is like an independent system. They do not gain meaning from being recorded in text, but are continuously generated through my process of thinking in my native language. This ongoing generation of thoughts, through continuous accumulation and enrichment, constructs a self-consistent world. The meaning of words is not constructed on paper or in binary data; rather, it becomes the key and bridge to enter our world. What an exhilarating activity this is! 
Thus, human language does not signify human thought; language is an extension of thought in the objective world, a treasure map left by another world in the present. Language itself reflects the rules of thought from a certain aspect or dimension. It also reflects the rules of the world we create. Therefore, studying language itself or a particular article has unimaginable value and significance.
From Objective Language to Subjective Thought#
First, let me clarify what I mean by subjective and objective.
The so-called objective includes not only the material entities we exist in, such as the earth, atoms, galaxies, tables, and smartphones, which have objective reality, but also various physiological and social activities that reflect human thought.
The subjective, which is usually referred to as subjective, is the thinking activity that occurs in a person's brain. This subjectivity itself is objective.
I believe there is also a form of pure subjectivity that does not rely on the material world. It cannot be said that matter determines consciousness; rather, it should be said that matter determines the consciousness of matter. As long as the material components are satisfied, a form of subjectivity will reflect itself in the material world. When the material components are not satisfied, a form of subjectivity will not reflect itself in the material world. For specifics, refer to Past Lives, Future Lives, Sacred Objects, Me.
The appearance of human thought is a description of brain activity, while internally it is an independently operating system. Language itself possesses logic in the objective world; language is a reflection of thought in the objective world, so thought itself is logical.
A person's books, a person's speech and behavior, and any activity in the objective world all reflect a person's style and characteristics. This style and characteristics, along with various common traits, collectively build an external objective image. Within the subjective, there is also a logical system. This system is constructed based on fixed principles. These principles guide all human behavior. As long as these principles are altered or their development is promoted, a person will be reshaped. Breaking all the shackles of thought, completing the ROOT of thought.
What is a Person?#
Undoubtedly, ROOT permissions are the foundation of human thought. I do not believe in changing a person's principles purely from a subjective level. While I do not deny the existence of a purely subjective world, as the saying goes, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." To change a person's thinking principles, one must start from both the objective and subjective aspects of the person. The objective here is easy to understand, while the subjective refers to the subjective activities that can be observed from the objective.
Marx once said that a person is the sum of all social relationships. I believe the two cannot be equated; beyond social relationships, there also exists the relationship between humans and nature, and even between humans and pure subjectivity.
The Social Relationships of Humans#
To change a person, altering their social relationships is the easiest approach. For example, when a movement occurs, a person's property rights and possession relationships are disrupted. For instance, a prolonged pandemic has caused countless people to lose their loved ones. For example, a significant change in social systems, emphasizing agriculture while suppressing everything else, raising soldiers to conquer the world... Any individual will undoubtedly be changed under severe social turmoil. Without discussing whether the degree of change can reach the level of root, we can confirm that when a person's social relationships are changed to a certain extent, the underlying logic of what makes them human will definitely change, and they will be ROOTed.
The Natural Relationships of Humans#
The relationship between humans and nature also defines humanity. Living in society does not mean that humans are only regulated by social relationships. Humans exist in the world, fundamentally acting upon their relationship with the world. For example, property rights are defined by law; under this legal system, anyone should passively refrain from interfering with the rights of property owners. Property rights do not define the relationship between humans and objects but rather the relationship between humans, thereby enabling humans to dominate objects. However, in a natural state, humans can acquire objects without any interference, leading to the disappearance of the concept of property rights.
So, what exactly is the relationship between humans and nature? We can certainly exclude social relationships between humans, leaving only the relationship between humans and objects. All objects are subjects, and all humans are also subjects. Only one subject remains, which is the individual. This feeling can be described by the childhood perception of the world, where everyone is an actor on my stage, and I am both the protagonist and the director.
From an extreme perspective, suppose a person is born in a world without other humans, to illustrate the nature of human relationships. If there are no sentient beings for this newborn to imitate, their view of the world should be chaotic and slow, while also being one of low desire, desperately probing this world.
I remember someone once cited the example of a wolf child, a child raised among wolves, who could communicate simply with them and whose habits resembled those of wolves. This indicates that he inherited the habits of wolves. He used wolves as his model for imitation. Although he looked different from wolves, his imitative behavior suggests he considers himself a wolf. Thus, his self-identification as a wolf is a social behavior.
In the hypothetical world described above, a person in a purely natural state would not consider themselves human. They would only imitate the new world they inhabit. The round sky and square earth, the alternation of day and night, the changing of seasons, the blooming and withering of flowers... They would see themselves as part of this world. They would feel the rules of this world and internalize these rules. Until their death, they would still not have a concept of death; to them, this world has no end, just as suffering gives way to joy, and the seasons change. They would also not have a concept of reproduction or love. They would fear pain, but this fear would only drive them to explore this world further.
Pure Subjectivity of Humans#
Pure subjectivity is a reserved option. We live in this objective world, where everything is an impression of the objective world. All behaviors are merely various explainable biological phenomena. This objective world is so perfect that it can explain our birth and death as merely physiological scientific phenomena. From a scientific perspective, I will never believe in this so-called rigorous world, nor will I be foolish enough to disbelieve it. I am simply questioning whether there is nothing beyond this world. Is the sky truly blue, or is it just an illusion? Therefore, I believe in the possibility that humans possess a pure subjectivity that does not exist in the objective world.
ROOT, Shedding the Shell of "Human"#
The above is my entire understanding of humanity. Due to the interconnectedness between the subjective and objective aspects of humans, we can directly analyze human thought. The so-called root thinking is about rooting people, that is, changing the three properties of humans I mentioned above. Among these three properties, we need to distinguish what can be changed and what cannot be changed. Then, we must consider to what extent changes can reach the level of root, and so on.
In fact, it is meaningless to simply discuss the degree of change in the aforementioned social or natural relationships. Because the change in a certain social relationship is as normal as cellular metabolism. Any social relationship or natural relationship is in constant flux. If we want to ROOT, we must ROOT the fundamentals of humanity, identify the principled aspects of the three, and then change them.
Individual and Group#
The most fundamental social relationship of humans is the relationship between individuals and groups. This includes morals, laws, and various social norms. One of the most important points is the recognition of one's identity as a "human." All the social relationships we find ourselves in are deeply reflective and self-imposed.
Taking morality as an example, morality is merely a social norm based on a specific group; without the group, morality loses its soil for existence. ROOT is the same; when one departs from the group on a cognitive level, the title of "human" loses its material foundation. At this point, a person has already acquired a portion of the new permissions that were previously constrained by the group.
Any norm, whether habit, custom, morality, or law, is backed by the coercive power of a material foundation. If the material foundation for its existence is lost, any norm will revert to nothingness. Law and state cease to exist. Morality disappears in a place with different morals. If there are no people, there is no morality; if a person is no longer human and becomes another creature, there is also no morality. — See more in Morality and Inner and Outer Morality
If you do not consider yourself Chinese, you will never be bound by Chinese morals and customs. Similarly, if you do not consider yourself human, all human morals and standards will not constrain you.
Hatred and Killing#
However, precisely because we do not consider ourselves pigs, we eat pork without any burden. Some people blinded by patriotism believe that Japanese people are not human, which is why they feel justified in their destructive actions. The greater the hatred of soldiers on the battlefield, the less psychological barrier there is to killing.
After assisting in the slaughter of pigs, sheep, chickens, and fish at home, I found it hard to remain calm. If taking a life is so easy, how ironic it is for those lofty virtues to be cast aside. If we do not see humans as being the same as animals, then what difference is there between humans? This stark contrast is also another impetus for ROOT thinking.
After personally killing a life, all human doctrines, values, rules, and morals seem like clowns. This is a virus; the coldness from deep within extinguishes all desire for life. This extremely bloody scene awakens me from the illusion of survival. I awaken from the beautiful dreams woven by society. The graceful lady turns into a pile of bones, the mountain of meat and sea of wine turns into a belly full of excrement, whether it be a gentleman or an innocent child, at this moment, all feel emptiness. Only the silence that dares not look directly and the stupor after the heartbeat remain. — Slaughter
At the same time, people dislike various cat abuse incidents and the consumption of dog meat because they identify with the identities of cats and dogs. However, relatively few people identify with pigs.
Self and Cognition#
Those who live in solitude are either beasts or gods. — Aristotle
The reason humans can root is that humans are not necessarily human. Humans become human not because they are born human, but because they are socialized into humanity. As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock together." In bustling cities, some people find themselves in special circles filled with wine and song, while others are in remote mountains, high plateaus, and places under white clouds. The worlds of these two types of people are vastly different. This distinction itself is a pre-set self of human nature. Humans differ from objects. The degree of interaction between humans is much higher. Or, sentient beings placed together will self-identify as a group.
Initially, I did not believe that those who live in solitude would be beasts. However, I discovered that solitude is not merely physical distance but a spiritual distance. In this sense, the social nature of humans loses its inherent power, and a person transforms from an individual of the group into another creature. It does not necessarily mean a beast or a god; it is just that we do not know how to describe this creature.
ROOT, Dusting Off the Desire#
If shedding the identity of "human" starts from social relationships, then limiting desire starts from natural relationships, or from material relationships. The relationship between humans and material, in a natural state, includes both objects and humans. This does not contradict human social relationships. In social relationships, humans are considered subjects, while in natural relationships, there is only one subject; the rest are objects, and humans are also a type of object.
The Catholic Church once spoke of the seven deadly sins. Today, the seven deadly sins generally refer to pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust. Buddhism speaks of the five poisons: greed, hatred, ignorance, arrogance, and doubt. Although the two are not the same, their denial of desire is similar. Here, I do not intend to deny desire. Rather, I want to say that the less one is controlled by desire, the more one can enhance self-control. At this point, one can be considered to have reached a degree of ROOT.
Methods to Dust Off Desire#
However, not being controlled by desire does not mean controlling desire. Desire is objective, akin to a drug. You cannot and need not struggle against addiction while using drugs, attempting to conquer desire. In My First Love and Sex Addiction and Castration, I shared various thoughts based on my experiences regarding this. I feel this is similar to a saying by Confucius:
The Master said: "Do not look at what is improper, do not listen to what is improper, do not speak what is improper, do not act on what is improper."
Taking the crime of rape as an example, if a person intends to commit a crime, they must first receive a lot of information. On the streets, in nightclubs, and on phones, there are various men and women. When desire becomes unattainable to a certain extent, it can lead to criminal intent. After generating criminal intent, one needs to find a target and prepare tools for committing the crime, thus executing the criminal act. During execution, one must suppress resistance, touch, insert, and a series of actions. If a person is already preparing to commit a crime, it is unrealistic to expect them to stop.
Therefore, the best way to combat desire is to not generate desire at all. If a person does not look or listen, then they will not be aroused by desire. Of course, people fear that someone like Ji Gong might eat dog meat in the Buddhist community, as they worry he might awaken the desires of the monks. Tibetan Buddhism advocates for dual cultivation, but I believe dual cultivation is merely about experiencing matters between men and women; if one continues dual cultivation, I do not believe it. Thus, both methods have their merits. However, there is no patch of pure land that is free from weeds, and desire can never be completely eradicated. If one can avoid stirring up dust, then do not dust off after the dust has settled.
The body is the Bodhi tree, the heart is like a bright mirror stand; constantly polish it, lest it be stained with dust. — Shenxiu
The Bodhi tree has no tree, the bright mirror is not a stand; originally there is not a single thing, where can dust alight? — Huineng
A Pure Relationship with Nature#
If a person can be free from the control of desire and only needs the most basic material, then their relationship with nature will become very pure. Just like those who do not wear underwear, many things that ordinary people consider necessary are not necessary. When one only chews a bite of a pancake, the sweetness of the starch is tasted. When a person reaches a moment of extremely simple material needs, they will break free from the complicated relationships of society and nature.
ROOT, Life and Death by Force#
Humans live within certain social relationships, playing different roles. When shedding the identity of a human, we have already become "beasts." When the "beast" breaks free from the shackles of desire, what remains?
Everything in the objective world is merely the rise and fall of matter; what does that have to do with us? If humans are truly objective beings, then replicants are objectively inevitable. If replicants are inevitable, then all humans cannot discuss life and death, as they can be assembled at any time. Therefore, from a purely objective perspective, humans are neither born nor die.
Legalists are good at discussing the power of law. "The soaring snake swims in the mist, the flying dragon rides the clouds; when the clouds disperse, the mist clears." Clouds and mist are the forces of dragons and snakes. "Thus, the wise are subdued by the unworthy; this is the lightness of power."
In Life and Death by Force, the so-called force is the pure comparison of objective power. I have always been distinguishing between what is internal and external. Xunzi said, "The noble person is not different; they are good at utilizing things." The body exists in the objective realm, but it is also an external object. As the saying goes, "The King of Hell calls you to die at midnight; you cannot live past dawn." Death is an objective matter, and birth is also an objective matter; everything exists within force, and everything is in the comparison of objective powers.
Our parents give birth to us, and we should be grateful for their nurturing, but birth is not something we choose. Similarly, is death something we choose? In the objective and subjective realms, death is also an objective conclusion. Therefore, no one experiences their own death; you live, and it has nothing to do with you; you die, and it has nothing to do with you.
Thus, I enjoy thinking, so thinking is happiness. Because apart from thinking, I do not know what belongs to me. Thinking itself may not be mine, but it is indeed a trace of my existence.
Conclusion#
Rooting human thought is essentially about understanding humanity, and naturally, one will find methods to ROOT. After rooting thought, people can choose to commit crimes or do good, to be demons or to be gods. Because all your shackles can be broken. However, because you are a part of the objective world, anything you do to break free from shackles requires something objective. ROOT is merely a possibility, just a method, but not everyone will attempt it.
Just as I would not root that television even if I could. As for computer systems, I have changed countless times.
Many people say that pursuing the so-called afterlife or transcendence is meaningless and self-deceptive. Is pursuing the present life not self-deceptive?
I have always thought that writing articles is akin to programming. I do not understand computer languages, but I understand Chinese. All language users create stories and worlds through their words. Articles, like programs, achieve automatic operation. The thought that serves as the source of the article operates according to its own principles. This is the origin of all ROOT.
20230814