今天晚饭后，上网看了欧阳修的“新唐书”，“本纪第一---高祖”一篇。 看了这一篇文章的将近二分之一而已， 甚觉无聊，或者说就是流水帐。不过另一方面来说，高祖的生命本身就没有什么光彩，至少是我看过的这近二分之一的文字。 同时，欧阳修也是简明扼要，概述纪事。

 

与我之前所知道的李渊被其二子世民胁迫而起兵并无出入。李世民见隋政荒且疑杀臣僚，天下大乱，雄魔共起， 便私下与裴寂密谋起兵之事， 趁高祖酒酣之际软磨硬泡；高祖半推半就，也就许了。募兵勤王， 镇压叛乱。

 

高祖之军连战皆捷，于“癸亥，遥尊隋帝为太上皇，立代王为皇帝”。 李氏一门，封侯冠王，权重可颠朝政。隋帝（代王，非炀帝也。 因各地兵起，炀帝困于京外而后遭宇文化及所戮）封过了李渊唐王，又进唐王位相国，立四庙，最后，还拱手让出了帝位：

“戊午，隋帝逊于位，以刑部尚书萧造、司农少卿裴之隐奉皇帝玺绂于唐王，三让乃受。 武德元年五月甲子，即皇帝位于太极殿。”

 

似乎，这李渊的皇帝做的名正言顺， 心安理得。经过好似宋太祖的陈桥兵变，但是李渊要光荣的多， 竟然是皇帝主动“让贤”。不过 二人都可以大呼冤枉，非二人本意也。 李渊虽说是隋帝逊位，也是三让乃受；而赵匡胤是酒醉而被人黄袍加身。毋庸置疑，二人均权谋高手，个人来看，赵之手腕高过李。因为李渊之登帝位，实有着一丝的替天行道，易暴君而安天下的味道， 所以自然环境要好过赵。但是赵匡胤还是略施小计，名正言顺却又“无奈”的做了皇帝。

 

不知道这位明智的代王是不是最后没有死在李渊的刀下？

以后有机会再接着看，太困啦啦。。

自己，或者是所有的人类，都是懒散的本性。 一旦有了机会，就会漫无边际的放纵，就算是没有机会，也会绞尽脑汁的去制造偷懒的理由。

或许，当年的老子只是给世人一个借口，叫做“无为”？肯定的，李太白拗不过本性的闲懒，才会“呼儿将出换美酒，与尔同销万古愁”。

 

提及老聃，也便整理点他的事迹吧。

 

老子骑青牛而周游，向西行，给见到紫气东来的关尹讲了道德经。

老子接着走，遇到了弟子阳子居。阳子居说要购置房产修葺整顿出安静宜人的环境供自己修行。  老子教育他：“大道自然，何须强自静。行无求而自松，饮无奢而自清，卧无欲而自宁。修身何需深宅？腹饥而食，体乏而息，日出而作，日落而寝。居家何需众役？顺自然而无为，则神安体健；背自然而营营，则神乱而体损。”

 

老子传徒孙南荣以养生之道：“养生之经，要在自然。动不知所向，止不知所为，随物卷曲，随波而流，动而与阳同德，静而与阳同波。其动若水，其静若镜，其应若响。身立于天地之间，如同枯枝槁木；心居于形体之内，如同焦叶死灰。如此，则赤日炎炎而不觉热，冰雪皑皑而不知寒，剑戟不能伤，虎豹不能害。于是乎祸亦不至，福亦不来。祸福皆无，苦乐皆忘也。”

 

老子隐居于宋国沛地，求识者却不绝。 十数年前拜访过老子的孔子也去了沛地，跟老子说他自己勤思苦想，至今也未曾得大道。老子便授之以道。听罢，孔子说：“吾三十而立，四十而不惑，今五十一方知造化为何物矣！造我为鹊则顺鹊性而化，造我为鱼则顺鱼性而化，造我为蜂则顺蜂性而化，造我为人则顺人性而化。鹊、鱼、蜂、人不同，然顺自然本性变化却相同；顺本性而变化，即顺道而行也；立身于不同之中，游神于大同之境，则合于大道也。我日日求道，不知道即在吾身，丘将随造化而行矣！”

 

老子160岁仙逝，其好友秦佚来吊唁，于老子灵旁，不跪不拜，拱手致意，哭号三声即止。众人怒而诘之。 秦佚笑道：“吾哭号三声，非因悲也，是与老聃辞别也。一号，言其生而应时，合自然之理也。二号，言其死而应时，合自然之理也；三号，言其在世传自然无为之道，合自然之理也。

实在老子有言：“生亦不喜，死亦不悲”。

Today, I read an article "Writing Tips for Ph. D. Students" by John Cochrane, and feel that it is worth noting down some of the principles.

 

Throughout the article, Cochrane emphasizes the philosophy of being precise and efficient. 

The central and noval contribution of your paper needs to be distilled from your entire work.
People tend to concern about what your result is, and the procedures of the research and the backgrounds are better left in a less important place for the readers who are interested, since merely does a person read through the whole article. 

One general point Cochrane gives is that "Follow the rule “first describe what you do, then explain it, compare it to alternatives,and compare it to others’ procedures” at the micro level as well as the macro level", which can be applied to the various analysis.

 

The abstract is generally limited to 100-150 words in length, and is expected to be concrete about your central result, without mentioning other literature.

 

Starting with your central contribution in the introduction and further explain this and what you do in this paper. Literature review should be compressed to the mimunum, which could be the recent two or three most relevant papers.
Cochrane does not normally write the structure of his article, which is quite odd according to what I have learned. He claims that the readers will figure out themselves, but I still believe that it is more efficient to inform the readers with the structure of the paper, because they can quickly skip to the interested parts.

 

In the main body, you should reach to the central result when the readers are sill awake, ("Here’s the rule: There should be nothing before the main result that a reader does not
need to know in order to understand the main result.") so it should be fast enough for the readers are not patient.

The theory implemented in the paper should be of the minumum for the reader to understand the imperical results (the key results are normally empirical not theoretical works).

When introducing models, you only work on the specialised ones used to analyze the data, i.e. it is unnecessary to state the full model and make certain assumptions to approach to the specific one.

 

The conclusion is regarded uncecessary, since Cochrane argues that a good introduction explains the results well enough. If you must write one, keep it "short and sweet", and do not restate all the findings.

 

Cochrane also discussed the use of appendice tables and diagrams, etc. The main idea is to include them only if they are analysed. Simple is better.

Other suggestions on gramma, style, empirical work, seminar representation, ect. are also presented in Cochrane's article, but I will omit them and am going to sleep.

 

 

 

Writing Tips for Ph. D. Students
John H. Cochrane1,2
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
5807 S. Woodlawn
Chicago IL 60637.
773 702 3059.
john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu
http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/