Divergences Among People

The ultimate truth of humanity's division and unity

I. What Question Does This Book Seek to Answer?

You were born a single person.

Only you can hear your own heartbeat; only you can feel your own pain. When you lie in bed late at night staring at the ceiling, that voice repeatedly asking "what, after all, have I been living for?" — only you can hear that too.

Yet you can never live entirely alone. You were born into a family, grew up in a community, work in a company. You cannot do without others, yet others always make you uncomfortable. A colleague forgets what you asked him to do; your parents cannot understand the "involution" you talk about; your partner fails to do what was promised; even you yourself often fight against yourself — meaning to get up, you hit the snooze button; meaning to work hard, you collapse on the sofa.

Why? Why is there always divergence, estrangement, antagonism, and conflict between people? Why do the closest people hurt each other? Why do groups split apart? Why is humanity always unable to truly unite?

The answer lies not in interests, not in culture, not in positions. The answer lies in the very depths of the human heart.

The essence of divergence is the self. The essence of unity is sociality. And the ultimate way out of human civilization is: with rational cognition, to establish, among countless independent selves, an ultimate law of balancing the self.

This is not a discipline but a way out. A way out for every independent soul, and for all of humanity.

The core master thesis: people stand apart through the self, unite through sociality, find balance through reason, and produce civilization through balance. Divergence is fate; unity is a choice; balance is the way out.

II. The Theory of Origins: Divergence Is Doomed from the Moment the "Self" Is Born

What is the self?

Born into this world, our first true awakening is not learning to walk, not learning to speak, but the first separation of "I" out of the chaos.

From then on, the outside world is the outside world, and I am I. Feelings are mine, thoughts are mine, positions are mine. The human being became an individual. This is the birth of the self.

The self is not the body — the body ages and changes, but the sense of "I" remains continuous. The self is not emotion — emotions come and go, but "I" am the subject watching the emotions come and go. The self is not thought — thoughts arise and perish endlessly, but "I" am the presence capable of perceiving thoughts.

Returning to the most fundamental level — the self is the unified center constructed by consciousness for survival, stability, and action. Its mission is a single one: letting a life exist, judge, choose, protect itself, and complete itself in the world as an "independent individual."

Without the self, a person is only a drifting mass of sensations. With the self, a person becomes a person.

The three innate structures of the self

Once the self is born, it carries three attributes that cannot be eliminated. They are not acquired, not shaped by culture; they are the essential structure of the self.

First, centered on "I." The self naturally takes itself as its starting point, its measure, its standard. This is not selfishness; this is the basic form of the self's existence. Once the center exists, the seed of divergence is already sown. Because another self has its own center too.

Second, drawing boundaries and distinguishing you from me. The self must establish boundaries, otherwise "I" would dissolve into the outside world. The boundary is the umbrella of the self. But the boundary is also a wall. Inside the wall is me; outside the wall is the other. Estrangement, misunderstanding, alienation, antagonism — all begin from this boundary.

Third, pursuing survival and uniqueness. The self must stay alive, and must also "live like me." I must not disappear, must not be replaced, must not be assimilated. This pursuit of "uniqueness" makes a person himself, and also inevitably makes people different from one another.

The five spiritual personalities: even one argues with oneself

The "I" of everyday language is in fact a composite, made up of several different spiritual personalities.

A most ordinary scene: on a cold morning in the college years, I lie comfortably in bed, just awake. I immediately think that I should get up and study; I very much want to go to the library to read. Yet the comfortable "I" right now has no desire to throw off the quilt. I struggle in contradiction — one moment very much wanting to study, the next unable to get up.

I want to get up and go read — this "I" is the one pursuing self-improvement. But I did not get up — this "I" is the one fond of ease and comfort. If "I" were simply "I," a single, whole existence, then when I gave the command "get up," my body would execute it immediately. But the fact is: I gave myself the command, and I did not execute it.

What does this show? It shows that "I" is not one person, but a team — an internal team made up of several different roles. Whoever gains the upper hand decides your final conduct.

The private-good spirit — the subject and core. It pursues what is good for oneself: preservation, care, enrichment, beauty, pleasure, compassion, reflection, confidence, strength, esteem, freedom. This "I" is the ultimate end of all action.

The public-good spirit — the power of outward connection. Being good to others: preserving others, caring for others, enriching others, enriching others' beauty, delighting others, showing compassion for others, enlightening others, trusting others, empowering others, honoring others, freeing others. It is one of the means by which private good achieves its ends.

The public-malignancy spirit — the power of confrontation and defense. Being bad to others: destroying others, obstructing others, harming others, uglifying others, annoying others, freezing others out, turning against others, suspecting others, weakening others, humiliating others, controlling others. When goodwill does not work, the power of ill will is needed to protect oneself.

The private-malignancy spirit — the power of self-negation and humility. Being bad to oneself: destroying oneself, obstructing oneself, impoverishing oneself, uglifying oneself, annoying oneself, freezing oneself out, turning against oneself, suspecting oneself, weakening oneself, humiliating oneself, controlling oneself. It prevents private good from over-expanding. Appropriate private malignancy is the source of modesty and self-examination; excessive private malignancy is the source of inferiority and depression.

The rational spirit — the power of balance and cognition. It perceives, cognizes, judges, and balances. It does not directly produce desires, nor does it directly act, but it can observe what the other four "I's" are doing, and render judgment and balance among the conflicting "I's." The ultimate mission of reason is to balance these five personalities.

The fundamental conclusion: wherever there is a self, there must be divergence

Divergence is not an error, not a sin, not an accident. Divergence is the natural result of the existence of the self. You have your center, I have my center; you have your boundaries, I have my boundaries; you have your uniqueness, I have my uniqueness. No quarrel needed — divergence already exists.

So we can answer that age-old question: why is there always divergence between people?

Not because human nature is bad, not because society is complex, but because — once a person becomes an independent self, divergence is already doomed.

This is not despair, but the truth. Acknowledging that divergence originates in the self is the first step toward unity. Only when we see the root clearly can we avoid fantasizing about "eliminating divergence," avoid demanding that "everyone be the same," avoid accusing "difference equals wrong." The self cannot be eliminated; divergence cannot be eliminated. But conflict can be reduced, harm can be stopped, and unity can be achieved.

III. The Discriminating Mind: The Bottom-Layer Mechanism by Which Consciousness Manufactures Divergence

The self is not static. Once it exists, it keeps operating. And the basic way it operates is called the discriminating mind.

Discrimination is the precondition for knowing the world

When a baby is born, the world is a mass of chaos. Gradually, it begins to discriminate: this warm, soft thing is "mommy"; that cold, hard thing is "the bed." The discriminating mind is the capacity of consciousness to cut chaos into individual units.

Without the discriminating mind, a person cannot know the world. If you cannot distinguish fire from ice, you will be burned; cannot distinguish food from poison, you will be poisoned. So discrimination is not wrong; discrimination is the precondition for "staying alive."

The discriminating mind is not the root of the problem; clinging to discrimination is.

Once discrimination rigidifies, it becomes opposition

The "factory setting" of the discriminating mind is neutral: it merely cuts information. But the self has a natural tendency: it interprets "different" as "threat." Because the self is centered on itself. My feelings are the standard; my judgment is correct. When another person differs from me, his very existence is a challenge to my "central position" — even if he has done nothing at all.

Thus the chain from "distinguishing" to "opposing" is set in motion:

difference → comparison → opposition → hostility → harm

How fast is this process? So fast that you never even notice. You see someone in bizarre clothes, and your brow furrows instinctively — "this person is abnormal." Without any reasoning, the conclusion pops out directly.

Discrimination breeds difference; clinging breeds conflict. Discrimination is not the problem; clinging to "my discrimination is right and yours is wrong" is the root of conflict.

The crack of memory: the same words, heard differently by two people

You instruct a subordinate: "Xiao Wang, hand me this report before three tomorrow afternoon." At three the next afternoon, the report has not come. You ask Xiao Wang, and he says: "Huh? You said tomorrow? I thought you meant the day after tomorrow."

Are you angry? But this is not a moral problem, not an attitude problem; it is a physiological difference of memory. Human memory is not a video recorder that replays precisely. Memory is reconstructive — every time you recall, the brain "reassembles" that memory according to its present state. You think you said it; he thinks he heard it; but between "you think" and "he thinks," there is forever a crack of memory.

Lesson: do not readily equate "he forgot" with "he does not care." Important matters need "double confirmation." When divergence occurs, first verify the facts, then discuss the attitude.

The language wall: the same sentence, two generations hear two meanings

Those born in the 1970s grew up hearing: ideal, dedication, the collective, the iron rice bowl. Those born in the 2010s grew up hearing: involution (neijuan), lying flat (tangping), social anxiety, the two-dimensional world (erciyuan), cosplay. You sit at the same dinner table, speaking the same language — Chinese. But you cannot understand what he is saying, and he thinks you are out of touch.

This is not a matter of who is smarter; it is a difference of language systems (vocabulary stores, semantic networks, cultural frames of reference). Language is not only a tool; it is the boundary of thought. The words you possess determine the level of problems you can think.

There is only one way to reduce the divergence caused by the language wall: translation. Say your meaning again, in words the other person can understand.

The ambiguity of texts: the same book, a thousand readers, a thousand Zhuge Liangs

Someone reads *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* and sees Zhuge Liang as a marvel of miraculous scheming, an almost supernatural figure. Someone reads *Records of the Three Kingdoms* and sees an outstanding statesman and military strategist, but not a deity. The two discuss Zhuge Liang and start quarreling. Who is right? Both are. Their "fact libraries" are different.

The problem lies in the source of the text, not in the process of reasoning. Whatever text you trust shapes your framework of judgment.

The gulf of cognition: the books you have read determine the world you see

Cognition is the entire background against which you understand the world: the books you have read, the education you have received, the events you have experienced, the culture with which you identify, the people you have met. All of these together shape the "cognitive model" in your brain. This model determines: which information is important, which information is credible, which causation is reasonable, which conclusion is correct.

When two people's cognitive models differ, the worlds they see are different. The same video: one who trusts the law-enforcement system sees "the police maintaining order"; one who suspects the law-enforcement system sees "the police abusing force." Neither is lying; their cognitive models are automatically "editing" the facts.

Lesson: do not try to "convince" the other party in a single argument. Changing a cognitive model is measured in years. Shift the focus from "changing the other" to "understanding the other." Seek the "zone of cognitive overlap," and begin the dialogue from facts and logic both sides accept.

The magnifying glass of technology: why today's divergences are more extreme than in the past

The algorithmic cocoon — you like view A, so it shows you only view A. Gradually, you think the whole world thinks like you. Online anonymity — an anonymous account can release public malignancy at will, with no consequences, at zero cost. Fast, short, shallow expression — complex problems are reduced to "you are good/bad," "you are patriotic/traitorous." Emotional contagion — an angry post spreads a hundred times faster than a rational analysis.

Modern divergence = the instinct of human nature × the magnifier of technology.

How do we stop this chain?

The discriminating mind cannot be eliminated, but we can cut the chain that slides from "difference" to "harm."

Cut point one: between "difference" and "opposition." Ask yourself: is this "difference" a real threat, or merely unfamiliarity? Most of the time, the answer is "no."

Cut point two: between "opposition" and "hostility." You may disagree with him and still respect his rights as a person. "He is wrong" does not equal "he is a bad person."

Cut point three: between "hostility" and "harm." Hatred is an emotion; harm is a conduct. Emotions are not under your control, but conduct can be chosen by you.

These cut points all require one core capacity: the rational spirit — that "I" which can see the whole picture, can pause the reaction, and can choose the response.

IV. The Four Filters of Consciousness: Why We See the World Differently

Even if two people have similar personality structures and both strive to restrain the discriminating mind, they may still react completely differently to the same thing. Because the way you perceive the world is not the way I do. You look at the world through a filter; you think you are seeing the world itself, but in fact you are seeing a version of the world processed by the filter.

The first filter: matter-intrinsic consciousness. Your heart beats, and you do not need to command it to beat. Your lungs breathe, and you do not need to think "inhale, exhale." This very imperceptibility is proof that it is working most perfectly. When matter-intrinsic consciousness goes wrong, your perception of the world is distorted. You may flare up at your family — not because the family did anything wrong, but because your body is sounding the alarm. Many divergences originate not in the matter itself, but in the bodily state of one of the people.

The second filter: bodily-sensory consciousness. At the same room temperature, you wear a short sleeve and he wraps himself in a coat. Not because he is being fussy; his thermoregulation system is different from yours. The same chili: you eat it sweating all over, he takes one bite and tears stream down. Not because he cannot handle spice; the sensitivity of his pain nerves to capsaicin is ten times yours. These bodily-sensory differences manufacture divergence every day. Do not use "I do not feel cold" to prove "you should not feel cold either."

The third filter: emotional consciousness. The same event, completely different emotional reactions from different people. A child scores 85 on an exam. Dad's reaction: "Great! You improved!" (public good). Mom's reaction: "Only 85? The neighbor's Xiaoming scored 98!" (public malignancy). Who is right? Both. Acknowledge that emotions have no right or wrong. You need not agree with his feelings; you only need to acknowledge "this is how he feels."

The fourth filter: rational consciousness. Different cognition, inevitably different judgments. You read *Records of the Three Kingdoms*; he reads *Romance of the Three Kingdoms*. You trust science; he trusts religion. Both of you are rational, yet your conclusions are forever opposite. To handle rational divergence, do not argue at the level of judgment; trace back to the source of cognition. Move from "you are wrong" to "our sources of information differ."

The compounding effect of the four filters: the same event, the same people, under different bodily states, different bodily sensations, different emotional leanings, and different cognitive databases, will react completely differently. What you see is not the event itself, but the version processed by the four filters. What you quarrel about is never "the facts," but "the facts in your respective filters."

V. The Theory of Human Nature: The Eight Factors

Although each person's "formula" differs, all people are made of the same set of "raw materials." Understand these components, and you understand why people are the way they are.

The four bodily factors:

Physical nature — your attributes of existence as a material system. You need to eat, drink water, breathe, and sleep. Physical nature deficient, a person cannot live; physical nature excessive, greed knows no bounds.

Suffering — your feeling of and aversion to pain. It is the alarm system of survival. Suffering deficient, one does not know danger; suffering excessive, one lives in hell.

Pleasure — your feeling of and pursuit of joy. It is the motive system of survival. Pleasure deficient, no motive; pleasure excessive, wallowing in indulgence.

Tranquility — the balanced state of body and spirit. It is the state the body most wants. Tranquility deficient, anxious and busy; tranquility excessive, lazy by habit.

The five spiritual factors:

Private good — being good to oneself. Preservation, care, enrichment, beauty, pleasure, compassion, reflection, confidence, strength, esteem, freedom. It is the source of all motive. Private good deficient, no goals; private good excessive, selfishness.

Public good — being good to others. Preserving others, caring for others, enriching others, enriching others' beauty, delighting others, showing compassion for others, enlightening others, trusting others, empowering others, honoring others, freeing others. It is the capacity to love. Public good deficient, cold and selfish; public good excessive, draining oneself dry.

Private malignancy — being bad to oneself. Destroying oneself, obstructing oneself, impoverishing oneself, uglifying oneself, annoying oneself, freezing oneself out, turning against oneself, suspecting oneself, weakening oneself, humiliating oneself, controlling oneself. It is the source of self-examination and humility. Private malignancy deficient, no self-reflection; private malignancy excessive, self-destruction.

Public malignancy — being bad to others. Destroying others, obstructing others, harming others, uglifying others, annoying others, freezing others out, turning against others, suspecting others, weakening others, humiliating others, controlling others. It is the power of defense and justice. Public malignancy deficient, timid and easy to bully; public malignancy excessive, abandoned by all.

Reason — cognition, judgment, balance. It is the power that drives the other factors. Reason deficient, no different from an animal; reason excessive, a cold-blooded creature.

The relations of the factors: private good is the goal; public good, public malignancy, and private malignancy are the means; reason is the tool. The four bodily factors are the "hardware"; the five spiritual factors are the "software." If any factor is too little or too much, the person develops problems. Balance is the best state.

VI. The Theory of Consensus: What Humanity Can Still Agree On

If divergence cannot be eliminated, how does humanity coexist? The answer lies not in "eliminating divergence" but in "finding consensus."

The first pursuit: bodily health and bodily-sensory tranquility. This is the first consensus of all humanity. Christians pray for health, Muslims pray for recovery, Buddhists cultivate health through practice, atheists exercise their bodies. Different paths, the same goal. When you conflict with a person, first pause and think — in doing that thing, was he also simply trying to make his body comfortable?

The second pursuit: a good life and the fulfillment of desires. The good life of all people points to the same set of things — the satisfaction of private-good desires. From the most basic survival needs (preservation, care, compassion), to the hope of living better (enrichment, beauty, pleasure), to social desires (confidence, strength, esteem), to the highest spiritual freedom (freedom). Divergence lies not in "whether we should climb this ladder," but in "what counts as rich" and "what counts as beautiful."

Testable truths: whatever you believe, gravity is the same for everyone. Whatever system you support, the basic rules of logic are the same for everyone. These testable truths are the "lowest common denominator" of human coexistence.

The two cornerstones of consensus: first, the ultimate goal of all people is the same — bodily health and a good life. Second, all people can acknowledge testable truths. One of these cornerstones is warm, the other solid. No matter how fiercely you quarrel, you can retreat to this ground and say: "We both want to live better, right? We both admit the earth is round, right?"

VII. The Theory of Balance: The Four Laws of Balance

Law one: acknowledge the self; do not eliminate the self.

Most people in fact do not truly acknowledge that "the other party also has a complete self." Bosses feel subordinates' thoughts are unimportant; parents feel children's feelings are unimportant. What Law One corrects is precisely this unconscious default setting of "self first, others second."

Four actions: listen, without interrupting. Confirm, without distorting. Separate, without conflating (separate "you as a person" from "your conduct/view"). Put yourself in the other's shoes — without that, you will never understand.

Law two: draw boundaries; do not violate others.

The overwhelming majority of interpersonal conflicts are, in essence, boundary conflicts. The boundary is not a wall; it is a door. A wall is meant to keep people out; a door is meant to decide when to let whom in. A healthy boundary is adjustable and elastic.

The four levels of boundaries: physical boundaries, psychological boundaries, temporal boundaries, relational boundaries.

The three steps of drawing boundaries: identify your boundary, express your boundary, maintain your boundary.

Law three: respect differences; do not force uniformity.

Difference is not an accident but the inevitable result of the evolution of human nature. Expecting everyone's perceptions, judgments, and preferences to be the same is as contrary to the laws of nature as expecting all snowflakes to have the same shape.

The three levels of respecting difference: tolerating difference (you disagree with him, but you bear it), understanding difference (you begin to ask "why is he different from me"), appreciating difference (you see value in the difference).

Law four: hold the bottom line; do not give up coexistence.

The bottom line is the minimal rule that all members of society must obey. The essence of the bottom line: do no harm. The bottom line is not a value. Values can be plural; the bottom line must be unified.

The three levels of the bottom line: the legal bottom line, the social bottom line, the relational bottom line.

When the bottom line is violated: use public malignancy rationally. Public malignancy is not wrong. Justifiable defense is public malignancy; righteous rescue is public malignancy. The key is: measured, disciplined, rational.

Balance is not compromise; it is wisdom of a higher order. Compromise is one side sacrificing its core needs for temporary peace. Balance is neither side sacrificing core needs, finding a plan in which all core needs can be partially satisfied. The formula of balance: satisfy core needs, let go of secondary obsessions.

The minimalist mantra (a three-second judgment): acknowledge the self without negating it; hold the boundary without crossing the line; respect difference without forcing; never touch the bottom line, never compromise on it.

VIII. The Theory of the Human World: The Road to Peace from the Human Heart to the Human World

Personal cultivation: from "knowing" to "living it out." Knowing is at the level of consciousness; doing is at the level of the unconscious. Your consciousness understands the "four laws," but your unconscious is still running decades of old programs. Changing the program takes time, repetition, and practice. It is like learning to swim: you watch a hundred instructional videos, but if you never jump into the water, you will never swim. Personal cultivation is your process of "jumping in." At first you fail, you relapse, you return to old patterns. No matter. Every time you notice after a failure, "I lost control again just now," that is progress.

Intimate relationships: why the people we love quarrel most fiercely. Because in intimate relationships the self is most authentic and the boundaries are most blurred. Three roots: treating "intimacy" as "the disappearance of boundaries," treating "divergence" as "not loving," treating "habit" as "necessity." The truth about love: after divergence, one is still willing to come back. Love is not the absence of divergence, but the willingness to come back after divergence.

Social dialogue: how to reduce tearing between different groups. Social tearing does not begin with divergence, but with the division into "us" and "them." Five principles of constructive social dialogue: the goal is not persuasion but understanding; first seek the zone of consensus; restate the other's view in your own words; distinguish the "person" from the "view"; know when to stop the dialogue.

Human peace: divergence no longer turns into harm. Human peace is not the absence of divergence, but divergence no longer turning into war. Turning from "pursuing private good through evil" toward "pursuing private good through good" is the fundamental way out of international relations. The greatest common divisor of human consensus: bodily health, a good life, testable truths, a sense of security. The ladder of human peace: negative coexistence → positive coexistence → shared flourishing.

IX. The Final Chapter: The Ultimate Answer of the Human World

Why is there divergence? Because the self naturally has a center, boundaries, and uniqueness. Divergence is no one's fault; it is the factory setting of human nature.

Is divergence necessarily harmful? Not necessarily. Divergence is the source of creativity, the immunity of the system, the guarantee of civilizational vitality. What is harmful is not divergence itself, but the way we handle divergence.

What can humanity still agree on? Although consciousnesses differ endlessly, all people pursue the same things: bodily health and a good life. Consensus lies not in "identical views," but in "shared goals" and "shared laws."

How can we coexist peacefully without eliminating the self? Use the four laws of balance: acknowledge the self, draw boundaries, respect differences, hold the bottom line.

What is the ultimate answer?

People stand apart through the self, diverge through standing apart, and conflict through divergence; people connect through sociality, unite through connection, and become civilized through unity; people cognize through reason, find balance through cognition, and find peace through balance.

Human divergence is fate. Human unity is a choice. Human balance is civilization.

The true ideal of the human world is not eliminating the self, not eliminating divergence, but: every self being respected, every difference being accommodated, every heart being balanced by reason.

X. This Book's Place in the System of Thought

*Divergences Among People* is the core work of the "relationships and society" module in Guoping Hua's system of thought, and the key work leading from the eight-factor theory of human nature to the repair of relationships, social dialogue, and human peace.

The core questions it answers are: where does divergence come from? What can humanity still agree on? How can we coexist peacefully without eliminating the self?

Its relations with other works in the system are as follows: *The Vanguard Concept* establishes the origin point of the eight-factor model; *On Human Nature* unfolds the complete structure of the eight factors; *The Way of Judgment* unfolds the complete structure of judgment; *Divergences Among People* applies the eight-factor model to relationships and society; *The Essence of Morality* applies it to the domain of morality; *The Logic of Law* applies it to the domain of law; *The Civilization of Public Good* applies it to the comparison of institutions; *The Ultimate Way of Governance* applies it to the philosophy of governance; *On Eight-Factor Education* applies it to the domain of education; *A Community of Shared Happiness* applies it to the future of humanity.

If *The Vanguard Concept* is the "root" of the system and *Civilization Cannot Burn Itself* is its "trunk," then *Divergences Among People* is one of the system's most important "branches" — it turns the theory of human nature into practical methods for repairing relationships and achieving social peace, letting the eight-factor model move from philosophical speculation into the everyday life of the human world.

People stand apart through the self, unite through sociality; find balance through reason, produce civilization through balance.

Divergence cannot be eliminated, but harm can be stopped.

True peace: every self respected, every difference accommodated, every heart balanced by reason.