Coincidentally, four years ago, when Paul went to great lengths to explain his algorithm to me when there were almost no product introduction documents, I was confused, but after a few collisions, I came up with Being as the parent brand name.
Paul was overjoyed and complimented me on my talent, but in fact, I just said what he wanted to say. It may be that algorithms have been studying loneliness for a long time, and very few people can say their inner insights. For a moment, Paul was as happy as an innocent child, and I could feel that he was dancing with his hands and feet on the other side of WeChat.
I know that the parent brand name should be Being.
At that time, with my intellectual structure, I could not fully understand him. However, it did not prevent me from understanding what he was thinking from other angles.
Lu You has a poem: If you want to be a poem, you work outside the poem. We all know that in the 21st century, interdisciplinary interdisciplinary research has long been the mainstream of academia, for example, the intersection of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, neuroscience and computer science has formed the most popular cognitive science.
I know that he saw the limitations of one area and came up with the idea of using other disciplines to intersect and solve problems. He mentions seven disciplines: economics, finance, complex science, political science, philosophy, mathematics, and computer science (including AI), which, if simplified, are economics, political science, and computers, and are based on philosophy and mathematics.
Paul’s transformation is the “Drucker dilemma(Drucker is a management master)”. We can understand this way that the voices of opposition to Drucker mainly focus on the difficulty of quantifying, and even Drucker himself believes that some organizational factors, such as “innovation” and “change”, are extremely difficult to quantify. Therefore, we recognize that the difficulty of quantification is not that it is not unquantifiable, but that “what is easy to quantify is often unimportant, and what is important is often difficult to quantify”, such as height, age, clock-in time, etc.; The latter are such as strategy, values, performance, etc. And with the evolution of the times to “knowledge and innovation driven”, this difficulty has become increasingly prominent.
From an entrepreneurial point of view, it is a business value to solve a common and increasingly obvious difficulty.
At present, this field is too liberal arts, and those who understand science do not understand liberal arts, so the academic community in this field has only been qualitatively transforming models in recent years, but has rarely made achievements in quantification, and there has been no fundamental breakthrough in either academia or industry. Paul tackles this issue skillfully but solidly through his interdisciplinary talents, and I will see Paul’s astonishing talent, and I am not exaggerating at all, he is a rare generalist.
In fact, over the years, the sociology of computing has been developing, and the integration of computing and society naturally means that science and liberal arts are merging. I want to say that Paul did not stay ahead of his time, but used the cutting-edge liberal arts and sciences and their interdisciplinary achievements to create a new generation of algorithms in the field of management, which we call the Being algorithm.
I’ve known Paul for many years, and I know that he is an interdisciplinary prodigy, and he knows all about literature and science, which is really rare. Since I became more familiar with its algorithm, I noted its WeChat name as “Oppenheimer”.
It is natural to be unfamiliar with “Oppenheimer”, but if you have not heard of the atomic bomb, I am afraid that there will be none. “Oppenheimer” played a crucial role in the process of making the atomic bomb, allowing the United States to invent the atomic bomb before Germany, we must know that Germany was the first country to discover nuclear fission, and had a large number of nuclear physicists, but until the end of World War II, the Germans did not develop the atomic bomb.
The Germans are slow to turn theory into systems engineering that products need. The Americans were different, the person in charge at that time was General Groves, a general who knew engineering, and his most powerful thing was not that he knew how to build the atomic bomb, but that he knew people, and he did not choose physicists who had already won the Nobel Prize at that time, but chose a young physicist, it was Oppenheimer, and his biggest characteristic was that he was not only proficient in physics, but also had a comprehensive understanding of chemistry, metallurgy, weapons, and engineering manufacturing. Weapons research is different from ordinary scientific research, and it would not have been possible without such extensive scientific knowledge, and Oppenheimer has a unique knowledge structure, and at the same time, he is also on the field to guide and make decisions, rather than staying in the office all the time. In this way, in less than three years, the United States built the atomic bomb, and it was because of its great military power that the United States was able to dominate the world.
Although Paul’s field of study is not the atomic bomb, the core of a pioneering undertaking is the same, which requires interdisciplinary research skills and a pragmatic spirit to be on the ground. Because of Paul’s interdisciplinary ability, we don’t need to communicate too much about scientific research, because he can do it alone, which is really rare.
After a few in-depth exchanges with Paul, I will slowly dissect and present the connotation of Being to you, hoping that you can see our sincerity and determination to do something for this field in a down-to-earth manner.
I’ll start with the Naming Being itself and tell you about our product development ideas and the form of their tools.
Since it is interdisciplinary, I will naturally interdisciplinarize to present the connotation of Being interdisciplinarily.
Philosophy, as the king of all learnings, starts with it.
In the eyes of philosophers, our phenomenal world is like the matrix in The Matrix, an illusion. And the real reality (essence) is that it is invisible to the naked eye, and seeing is nothing, not what we say in our daily life, and there are too many bugs in our sensory channels that make it impossible for us to see reality.
How do you express “existence”?
In linguistics, they deduct the undefined verb Being and use it to indicate “existence”.
English is a pinyin script, it is not like hieroglyphs can directly correspond to a concrete object in nature, the meaning of each subject must be formed by the predicate behind it, and the verb such as BE is used to assist the subject’s verb, it cannot be used as a predicate alone, and must be followed by the predicate (noun, adjective, some adverbs, non-predicates, prepositional phrases, clauses), constituting a predicate structure to explain the subject’s condition, nature, characteristics, etc. For example, My dream is to be a scientist.
So, Be itself doesn’t make sense, which is very important. Only in this way is it suitable to express “existence”, and there is a feeling of “useless and nowhere to use”, similar to the “Tao” spoken in Chinese.
You must know that the “theory of existence” in the context of Western philosophy is also called the “theory of being”.
And Being is a verb in the continuous tense, it is a virtual word, and Being is a “virtual word in the continuous tense”, which is a word for “continuous” and “virtual”, which can be translated as “is”, “become”.
Its usage is very complex and has a force to be reckoned with. What exactly is this power?
It implies the meaning of the invisible “being” of philosophy of “eternal inquiry” (ongoing)?
So, Socrates said: The only thing I know is that I know nothing. The development of science today lies in the continuous questioning of existence, nature, spirit, and society, because only by questioning can we get closer to the essence.
You know, happiness is called well-being in English, and happiness is a good ongoing state, it is not static.
Rogers, a humanistic psychologist, has a book called “Becoming A Human Being”, which means “to become a person”.
The “being is Being” here is also a state, and a person who is truly alive is actually “To be yourself” as Rogers said.
It’s not about being yourself, it’s not about “knowing yourself”, it’s about “being who you are”. It’s very similar to what we call in Buddhism, “self-sufficiency,” where you have everything in yourself.
“Becoming” means being one body and mind.
In computer science, we have begun to advocate a kind of computing called “ubiquitous computing”, one of its significant goals is to enable computer equipment to perceive changes in the surrounding environment, so as to make automatic actions based on user needs or settings according to changes in the environment.
In fact, the core keyword is the word “synchronization”, that is, the real-time synchronization between the cloud and the device. Just like now, if we change a mobile phone, if your data is stored in the cloud, in fact, changing the mobile phone is just a different terminal, and the kernel is still the original you, because the cloud data will be synchronized instantly.
The same is true for our cognitive upgrading, it is not enough for you to just change your front-end skills, the important thing is to upgrade the back-end synchronously.
In neuroscience, this “synchronization” is actually the instantaneous connection of neurons. What we often call inspiration is that we suddenly find some kind of connection to solve the problem in a large amount of data, and this connection is actually synchronization.
Being is a kind of original existence, and it is also a state of living in the present.
It should be noted that the word “now” is not as “now” as many people understand time, but a state that transcends time and space, and many masters will form their own ultimate realm in each field: for example, some NBA basketball players often say when they are performing well: The basket looks as vast as the sea; Cartoonist Cai Zhizhong often kneels down when he is in the ultimate state of painting, as if the world is only himself and the universe…… These states are not imaginary, but they feel the same in every realm.
Being is directly connected to “being”, so being is the present moment and existence itself. In other words, Being is both a process and a result.
Thus, Being is alive, and the best way to do it when you’re using Valor is that you don’t feel like you’re working, you’re being yourself, and you’re presenting your past understanding of the organization so clearly.
We want to use an appropriate way to maximize the potential of each manager to unleash their original potential, be able to fully and deeply solve problems, and have a more objective and real insight and evaluation of the situation of the company’s employees.
In this way, whether it is the boss himself or the manager, it can be adjusted dynamically in time, and the unity of knowledge and action can be maximized with Valor.
Being is both non-existence and being. Nothing, in other words, expresses the state of “being”; Yes, it is also rational, and it needs to be expressed as a carrier of software tools in order for us to use it.
Tools are rational, but in the state of using tools, we want you to be in the Being state.
We know that human beings can never be omniscient, but we are always questioning the essence of being, and in the process, we encourage you to falsify the original conclusions and find more essential answers in a way that continues to deepen your understanding.
In this way, you can gain unparalleled insights into the dynamics (Being).
Under the parent brand Being, we will have a series of sub-products, Valor will be the first blockbuster product, which will help every manager to measure those important but unmeasurable values before the emergence of Valor, in a real sense become the second brain of managers, so that many management and innovation insights that could not be perceived and measured can be seen, calculated and deduced. For example, “organizational mind” is a very complex management concept, if we want to measure the situation of an organizational mind, it was almost impossible in the past, but in Valor, we will have many indicators from different angles to measure “organizational mind”, these indicators will constitute a new perspective of insight into “organizational mind”, the above is just an example, the reality is that in Valor can be mined all kinds of new indicators that could not be observed and measured before, thus, they constitute a new management language, andInsight must be done with the help of AI, which is why we say that our vision is to “create a new management language with information technology”.
More than that, Valor can do just that: enable organizations to iterate with rapidly changing environments; Accommodating a variety of different management ideas; So that each enterprise organization at different stages of the “different essence of management insights” can be emerging.
Valor will present it through “complex network * AI“: if it is just a complex network itself, it is nothing more than the transformation of “tasks, people, skills and resources” into nodes and nodes, so as to form the “data base” of the enterprise organization, once the enterprise has made the transformation, the magic will happen in Valor:
- Every small change in the organization can be synchronized in time in the “data base” (how this “data base” is implemented is explained separately below), in response to Valor’s first ability: rapid iteration.
- For example, the managers who uphold the idea of “futurist” and “preperiist” will have completely different ideas, the former will not lay off the team of the new business, especially the core employees, while the latter is conservative and the most important thing is the moment, so he will not hesitate to lay off the new business. In Valor, the two completely opposite management ideas can be quantified to the conclusion that what exactly is the loss after laying off the new business? Even if you don’t lay off new business, in order to control costs, which employees don’t have much loss after being laid off? What are the losses to the enterprise if all new business teams are to be offboarded…… Quantification here means that these losses can be presented directly as financial gains, rather than as a feeling.
- The purpose of getting out of the view of the one truth is to be good at discovering the key points of strategy, organization, talent, and mechanism at different stages, which is a kind of practical wisdom rather than theoretical wisdom, or in other words, it is a kind of “existentialism”.
Let’s Focus on the third point. We can imagine that after an organization’s data foundation is built and can be iterated continuously, we don’t need to stare at it all the time in practice, but when I want to use it, it can give me a reliable reference. Behind it is a “complex network” that usually looks at “nothing”, when managers are laying off employees, more specifically, when they want to know which employees must not be laid off, this is a very specific problem, a kind of “have”, and we need to generate “some calculation results” from the “complex network of nothing”. In Taoist parlance, it is both “nothing” and “having”, and “having is born out of nothing”.
Valor is both “free” and “solidified”. To understand it with Sartre’s existentialism: he believes that “existence is nothingness” and “I am nothing, so I am free”, so the real reason for “the freedom of the front desk” is “the nothingness of the background”, and when “I” (here it can be the manager) makes a free choice (it can be a layoff), “I” must know how to “lay off” is to maximize the benefits, which is the “essence”.
So, “existence (nothingness) precedes essence”.
