【预订】Adventures of Amelia, Mustafa and Torumbolo 1: I Don't Like Frijoles 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：【预订】Adventures of Amelia, Mustafa and Torumbolo 1: I Don't Like Frijoles在线阅读

在线听书地址：【预订】Adventures of Amelia, Mustafa and Torumbolo 1: I Don't Like Frijoles在线收听

在线购买地址：【预订】Adventures of Amelia, Mustafa and Torumbolo 1: I Don't Like Frijoles在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：白鹤小区 发布时间：2010-02-06 23:34:39

  今天整理图书翻出来的，应该是大二的时候问别人借来没有还的书。说实话，看得云里雾里的（是某些民间机构出的书，忽悠读者去咨询投钱）。其中的理论（分时战法和K线）说得太过细琐，有点装高深。至今没有发现那本书可以把跟庄讲得比较透彻的。

• 作者：苏鱼 发布时间：2009-10-27 16:21:46

  女人，愿你的名字永远不叫撒旦。关于爱情，再优秀的女人，一旦爱上酱缸里的男人，便注定与幸福擦肩。一旦爱了，便满满都是好，狂喜是好，平静亦是好；点头是好，掉泪亦是好；好是好，不好亦是好。女人的慈悲，却什么都换不回。如果女人间的友情，都像麦微和林筝间那样，不透明，却单纯到心照不宣。那该多好

• 作者：Elact 发布时间：2016-11-24 17:30:02

  带着对佛教禅宗明心见性概念的一知半解，我打开了这本书，看了一两章，觉得这书层次太高了，进入了形而上求道的级别。禅宗不可说的东西，作者依靠博大的知识体系说了出来，也许不精确，但是也模模糊糊地绘制了大概的影像。

• 作者：张小嘴 发布时间：2019-02-18 14:28:33

  28M，目前只看了一遍

• 作者：V 发布时间：2007-10-20 21:51:25

  背吧背～～背多分

• 作者：Luca 发布时间：2014-06-24 10:29:09

  十分详尽，有趣！

• 宽容笔记：柏台霜气夜凄凄

  作者：方晓 发布时间：2009-12-11 08:40:46

  北宋神宗熙宁二年（1069年），王安石执政，开始举办新法，苏轼是新法的坚决反对者，屡次上书，主要的理由在于反对新法扰民。当时王安石得到神宗的信任，独断专任。于是苏轼在进士考试策问时出题，以“晋武平吴以独断而克，苻坚伐晋以独断而亡，齐恒专任管仲而霸，燕哙专任子之而败，事同而功异”为题，王安石大怒，派御史谢景温论奏他的过错，却一无所得，苏轼自己请求外任，通判杭州，后来又先后改知密州和徐州。

  元丰二年（1079），苏轼改知湖州，按照惯例上表谢恩，其中说：“陛下知其愚不适时，难以追陪新进；察其老不生事，或能牧养小民。”

  所谓“新进”，指因拥护新法而暴得高位的人，王安石的意图在于旧吏因循，新法不行，所以必要新进之人，方有勇锐之气，而后可图速成。而苏轼认为这种快速提拔的政策，使得“朴拙之人愈少，巧进之士益多”。

  所谓“生事”，是司马光抨击王安石新政的四大罪状即侵官、生事、征利、拒谏之一，很有意思的是司马光写了三千三百余言的《与王介甫书》，王安石回了三百六十字的《答司马谏议书》，并总结出这四大罪状。苏轼也一贯反对新法扰民的主张，自己不生事，意即“新进”“生事”。所以这两句，在苏轼无非自嘲和牢骚，在新党人士看来，实为讥刺。这也算是屈原以来的传统，字里行间，自有言外之旨，要说这是诬告，其实是没有的事。

  监察御史何正臣首先上表弹劾苏轼，指其不仅谤讪讥骂、愚弄朝廷，“一有水旱之灾、盗贼之变，轼必倡言，归咎新法。喜动颜色，惟恐不甚”，而且宣传中外，闹得天下共知。何正臣还引用《尚书•康诰》“人有小罪，非眚，乃惟终，不可不杀。”人有小罪，不是过失，而是故意犯罪，咎由自取，不可不杀，以此建议神宗“大明诛赏以示天下”，换句话说，就是把苏轼杀了以警告天下藐视新法的人。

  随后监察御史舒亶的上书，把审查范围扩大到苏轼平日的诗文：“陛下发钱（青苗钱）以本业贫民，则曰‘赢得儿童语音好，一年强半在城中’；陛下明法以课试群吏，则曰‘读书万卷不读律，致君尧舜知无术’；陛下兴水利，则曰‘东海若知明主意，应教斥卤（盐碱地）变桑田’；陛下谨盐禁，则曰‘岂是闻韶解忘味，迩来三月食无盐’，其他触物即事，应口所言，无一不以讥谤为主”，还刻印传布中外，搞得人所共知，建议神宗用“治世之重典”，以大不恭论处苏轼，以戒天下。

  国子博士李宜之则从宿州发掘出苏轼的《灵璧张氏园亭记》，检举其中“古之君子，不必仕，不必不仕。必仕则忘其身，必不仕则忘其君”云云，认为这是教导天下人可以不出仕，扰乱朝廷取仕之法。

  御史中丞李定上纲上线的指出苏轼四可废之罪：“怙终不悔（有所恃而终不悔改），其恶已着”、“狂悖之语，日闻中外”、“言伪而辩，行僻而坚”、“怨不用己，遂一切毁之以为非是”。

  这里值得一提的是，历来出于对苏轼的同情，往往将李定等人一概打倒，这也是中国民间心理的常态，蔡京本来名列“苏、黄、米、蔡”书法四大家，因为是大奸臣，“六贼”之首，往往不被承认，而以蔡襄取而代之。舒亶固然一向喜起大狱，名声不好，李定常常被人提及不为生母服孝的罪状，实际上李定自己解释过：“他不知道自己是仇氏所生，疑虑不敢服丧，因此以父亲年老的名义要求解职回家侍养。”这种疑事从权的方法应该说是比较妥当的。而且李定对宗族有恩，救济宗亲，家无余财，按宋朝规定，高官可以荫补子孙为官，李定又让给兄长的子孙，至死，几个儿子都还没有受封，从这点来看，李定毫无疑问可以称为典范人物。

  到此为止，我们先来总结一下苏轼的罪状，李宜之的罪状和其他三位御史官大相径庭，搁下不论。主要的罪状本质上有三条：

  其一、反对新法，不加悔改。此时从熙宁变法起算已有十年，新法的创始人王安石早已两度罢相，反对派的主角司马光在潜心编写他的《资治通鉴》，苏轼居然还在那里反对新法。

  其二、不仅反对新法，而且恶毒攻击新法，用诗文诽谤青苗法、农田水利法、严禁、明法科，这些新法是英明神武的神宗的国策，攻击新法就是攻击神宗。

  其三、不仅恶毒攻击，还刻版印石、唱和迎送，把这些恶毒的言论传布天下、混淆视听。

  因此，将苏轼以正刑典，有利于警告一小撮新法的反对者，有利于鼓励广大新法的支持者，有利于明风正俗。

  按说，苏轼少年盛名，欧阳修说“吾当避此人出一头地”，自许“有笔头千字，胸中万卷”，觉得“致君尧舜，此事何难？”后来因反对新政外放，不得重用，壮志难酬，难免心怀怨诽，发之于外，“诗可以怨”，在屈原为《离骚》，在苏轼则是诗词。这些对遭遇的牢骚、对新法的不满，是事实的存在。

  于是神宗下令革去湖州知州之职，并指派知谏院张璪和李定负责审问。

  汉时御史台柏树众多，常有乌鸦数千只栖息其上，晨去暮来，号为“朝夕乌”，由此，御史台称为“柏台”或“乌台”。苏轼逮捕到京，被关入御史台狱，因此被称为“乌台诗案”。

  一边是御史们的反复堪问、锻炼铁案，欲致苏轼于死地而后快，一边是众人的极力营救。

  除了弟弟苏辙，张方平、范镇等人都上书营救。张方平举出五个臣子得罪君王的例子，“季布亲窘高祖，夏侯胜诽谤世宗，鲍永不从光武，陈琳毁诋魏武，魏征谋危太宗”，这五个例子，四个是属于各为其主，只有夏侯胜一个勉强可以算是诽谤，却是诽谤先帝，可以说都不是合适的例子。张方平当时退休在南京（商丘）居住，官府不敢受理，就派儿子张恕前往登闻鼓院投进，张恕一向怯懦，徘徊许久而不敢投书。

  后来苏轼出狱，见到此文，吐舌色动良久。有人问他为什么？他也不回答。后来苏辙揭开谜底：“兄长吐舌，因为幸好张恕没有投书。从前郑昌救盖宽饶，上疏说“上无许史之属（嘱），下无金张之托。”结果反而激怒汉宣帝。兄长因为高名而与朝廷争胜，所以得罪，张方平许以“天下奇材”，岂不是反而激怒人主？”

  汉宣帝时许广汉、史高并为外戚，金日磾、张安世均是显宦，后来四姓并称，“金张许史”。盖宽饶认为皇位应该由贤人继承，而不该世袭，本来就被怀疑是为这些权门豪贵张目，郑昌这么说，岂不是越描越黑？

  宰相吴充问神宗：“魏武如何？”神宗说：“曹操算什么。”吴充说：“曹操猜忌如此，还能容忍祢衡，陛下以尧舜为法，而不能容一苏轼？”神宗大惊，说：“我没其它意思，只是让他来说清是非而已，马上就放他出去。”

  直舍人院王安礼，是王安石的弟弟，说：“自古以来大度的君主，不以言语罪人。如果治苏轼的罪，恐怕后人会说陛下不能容才。”神宗素来好名畏议，王安礼的话可谓一语中的，果然神宗说：“我本来就不打算深责苏轼，我马上就为你赦免他。”

  新法的中坚人物之一的章惇对神宗也很了解，他上疏说“仁宗皇帝得苏轼，以为一代之宝，现在反而置之囹圄，臣恐怕后世说陛下喜欢阿谀而厌恶直谏。”

  太皇太后曹氏（仁宗慈圣光献皇后）病中听说此事，对神宗说：“我记得仁宗皇帝策试苏轼、苏辙兄弟，回来很高兴的说：“我今天为子孙得到两个太平宰相。”听说苏轼因作诗入狱，是不是仇人中伤？因为作诗而入狱，他的过错太小了。我的病势已重，不可以冤枉伤中和之气，应该仔细审查。”神宗涕泣，后来曹太后病情加重，神宗大赦天下，于是苏轼以“讪毁国政，出于诬欺”结案后获释，责授苏轼检校水部员外郎、黄州团练副使，本州安置、不得签书公事。

  这个案例还有一个特点，不是针对一个人，而是牵连一群人。王安礼劝服神宗后，神宗说：“我赦免了他，但你切勿泄露。苏轼和众人结怨甚众，恐怕有人通过苏轼牵连害你。”王安礼在殿前遇到李定，李定说：“苏轼与金陵丞相（王安石）论事不合，你不要营救，否则别人会以为你是苏轼的同党。”又在舍人院遇到张璪，张璪忿然变色，说“你真的要救苏轼吗？”王安礼不作答。

  后来遇赦，李定认为苏轼“不将其流窜远方则扰乱风俗，再任命为官则破坏法令”，反对赦免。舒亶更上奏认为驸马都尉王诜身为皇家近戚、张方平（前宰相）、司马光、范镇等人身为朝廷大臣，收受苏轼讥讽朝政的文字而不检举，“顾可置而不诛乎？”要求一并诛杀。

• creativity book review

  作者：西瓜＞芝麻 发布时间：2017-10-06 02:26:56

  Dr. Sawyer is an expert in the field of innovation, collaboration, and learning sciences. With rich experience of public speaking, training, and working with diverse institutions, he passionately promotes the idea that innovative potential is prevalent in everyday settings and everyone’s life. In his 2013 book

  Zig zag: The surprising path to greater creativity

  , Dr. Sawyer brings up his model of creative process in 8 zigzag steps, namely Ask, Learn, Look, Play, Think, Fuse, Choose, and Make. This model is quite expressive because its comprehensive coverage and systematic process, with the consideration of both the cognitive and sociocultural view of learning. Based on these concrete steps, he makes the strong and clear argument that creativity is not an unpredictable strike on a few geniuses, but is a manageable process for everyone given proper practices of certain cognitions and behaviors.

  This is the first book I read about creativity. I find it quite eye-opening and exciting, with all the practical guidelines and strategies that can be readily applied in daily life. One important take-away is the argument that creativity can be cultivated if you wish, rather than being passively endowed with. More importantly, it inspires me to look at my life differently with a more playful and active mood.

  In each chapter around one step, Dr. Sawyer successfully discusses the significance, anecdotes and examples (either success or failure cases in creativity), the association with other steps, as well as some practical exercises. Another strength is the strong support of empirical research findings from the fields such as business, music, and psychology. They are sprinkled in the book and make the argument more convincing than propagandist.

  While reading this book, I followed the author’s suggestion to ponder some creativity challenges at hand. And I actually multitasked, or in Dr. Sawyer’s words “Cook on All Burners” (p. 162), which is to shift among several ongoing projects at a time and open the window for fusing ideas. It is really an exciting and enjoyable experience to witness my creativity grow. In this way, not only the reading becomes more relevant to me, but also changes the way I process information from passive reception to active association, idea generation, and evaluation. As I learnt from my Instructional Strategies class, another possible way to engage in reading and reflecting on this book is to rank top three favorite strategies from each of these eight steps.

  As this is my first read in the psychology of creativity, it’s quite refreshing for me to bump into so many good ideas. However, for those who have been in creative professions for a while, such as commercial designers, teachers, businessmen, and artists, the content may not be very surprising. Moreover, even though the linking of his 8 main elements is somewhat new, the wording of “zig zag” may be misleading. I am left the impression that the creative process is more like an interacted blending of various cognitions and behaviors, rather than haphazardly bouncing around several self-contained entities or steps. For example, one can simultaneously ask and learn, play and make, look and fuse, etc.; all can intertwine and do not extinguish from each other neatly. Admittedly, I buy into Sawyer’s proposition that creative process is seldom a straightforward or smooth path from one stop to another once and for all, but more often a jumpy and back-and-forth iteration and evolution. Nevertheless, the word “zig zag” does not depict the creative process as satisfactorily as the knitted diagram he uses on page 216.

  Although the idea that creativity has no finite termination makes sense, it sounds depressing to people like me, who just want to close the task at hand and move on in life. Surely, the influence of previous project must be there and probably blends into future production, but one cannot always afford the luxury to pursue a perfect Neverland. How to balance ever perfection and efficiency is a question to be answered. In this case, this argument may not be appealing for those whose work has clear boundaries and progressions.

  Another thing I want to touch upon is one of the strategies in “Ask” section – “Find the Bug”. Debugging is a very powerful locomotive of problem solving and innovation. In one example (p. 30), instead of being bugged by cluttered bathroom cabinet every day, installing a lazy Susan inside to spin makes the life all the more delightful and easy. However, I am a little concerned about the use of free attacks on flaws and its overgeneralization to other scenarios outside creative asking. In that case, people may be more motivated to start the creative process, yet at the potential cost of habitual malign complaints or nitpicking, and neglect the healing power of positive thinking and being grateful for what we have.

  Personally speaking, what I benefit most from his book is the awareness to ask good questions and the openness towards interminable evolvement of ever better ideas. I used to have the simplified assumption that one should find one key question and mostly direct stamina to the problem-solving rather than problem forming. But looking back, many bad solutions did derive from bad questions in the first place, like in the case of early version of Starbucks (p. 20). Also I have the tendency to see tasks more as obstacles to overcome, hurdles to jump over, and enemies to finish off, rather than chances to learn, to connect, and to grow. This book makes possible an optimistic perspective and fun-loving mindset in my life.

  With increased attention and acceptance of creativity, it’s worth living to see that, in the near future, creativity would become a basic element implanted in many more curriculums and training programs as a way to foster well-being and economic vigor. Would creativity have a similar increase as intelligence scores (i.e., Flynn effect)? Or would it be the case that collective creativity experience boost cancels the inflation out, and makes it harder for individuals to become creative?