sidelights 侧岭绘

Theological Discourse

2007-08-08T22:48:00.000-07:00

On restrictions- certain activities are deemed unchristian?

“We build walls to set us free.”

“We try to remain holly by staying within the walls.”

“It is just a protection.”

“The bible never forbids gambling or drinking.”

“All principles are good essentially. Just that when they become dogmatic, people begin to forget the principles.”

“It is always easier to follow the rules than to remember the principles.”

“By adhering to certain rules people felt that they have done their parts in salvation.” i.e. gain the merits

On discrimination- if you are not with us you are against us.

It appears to me when we say love others like yourself we never quite extend the love beyond our Christian fellows.

“The bible never teaches us to treat everyone equally.”

“We are struggling to deal with them [homosexuals]. We try to extend our care but in a way not to condone their behaviours.”

On kidnap in Afghanistan- Shouldn’t we love our enemies and pray for them more?

“I am not saying that they are evil. I think they are being controlled by evil forces.”

“Of course we hope that they will be released safely. But that is secondary. More important they shall glorify God and bear witness to Him in front of the terrorists.”

There is a spiritual warfare.

On division- why discriminate against other churches?

“The main problem is that they don’t believe in Jesus[‘s divinity].”

“The Mormons is just a Christian imitation. They use the same terminology but the theology is distorted.”

“Like a fake diamond- it is sparking and beautiful but it is worthless in the eyes of the master. [dream]”

On church leaders- is that the exemplar figure to follow?

When they put condemnation before love.

When they say the wicked ones shall be condemned to eternal damnation.

When they say the Taliban (and…) shall be destroyed by God.

“Human are flawed.”

“Churches are made up of human and human are messy.”

“We agree on most of Osama’s manifesto: the west exported vices and corruption to the Arabic world. We are no superior to them to criticise them as barbaric. However that allegation is based on the assumption that their world was once pure and unblemished.”

“If we were to examine our society, isn’t this rampant consumerism another form of evil?”

“The whole world is tainted by evil.”

“Human are quick to see flaws in others.”

“Some criticised the church people as hypocritical. The reply: well, there is always room for one more…”

Can I just dissociate myself from the corrupted church and just focus on my personal relationship with God?

If we love our church we shall stand up to correct them.”

It is not enough to have a personal relationship with God. We are told to build churches. The communion is important.”

On God- the apparent discrepancies in the Old Testament

Do I just swallow those unfavourable accounts and think that: that’s what makes him real cause he cares

“We have to read those stories in the context. What other options does God have?”

“God has noticed the wickedness of evil since the time of Abraham. But he did not act until he felt that those evil has came to peak after five hundred years. That shall show that he is patient enough and do not get angry easily.”

“You have to notice those cities which God wiped out the people are so evil that they are killing each others and the babies. Extermination is a mercy.”

“Sometimes I too wonder about their salvation plan.”

Human can’t understand God’s mind.

On Bible- is every word come from God?

Internal consistency- across all authors and time, parallel verses

Scientific foresight- toxic food, quarantine law, big bang

Personal experience- living words, God speaks to me through Bible, deeper appreciation every time reread, never get bore.

Historically honest- the defeats in wars and the fall of King David

Culturally unbiased- it is women that first met Jesus after resurrection

Documentation proof- the Dead Sea scroll

On canonisation- who decided, on what basis?

“The difference between Catholics and Protestants bible is secondary.

It does not affect the basic teaching.”

On Paul’s writing- personal opinion?

When people tried to attribute Paul’s attitude towards women to the cultural setting it appears to me that it was just his personal opinion and shall not reflect on God’s opinion. But how can we decide which things are only culturally relevant and what are universal?

“Paul confessed that some of the teachings are just his personal thoughts e.g. on marriage and celibacy.”

“Paul said man does not need to obey those dietary laws since the new covenant. Why did he still want to burden the women with those rules?”

“It never really bothers me as a man.”

“If we were to discount his advice as a cultural thing this could potentially be argued by others that practice homosexuality, serial monogamy and other sexual sins.”

“No, God and Jesus speak very clearly about homosexuality. That won’t happen.”

On liberal theology- do they have a point?

The feminist theology argues that the Bible is a male constructed thing intends to crush women at every instance. They think God treats man and women equally and they can have a satisfactory relationship with God without subjecting to male chauvinistic agenda in the Bible. The church views them as a departure from orthodoxy and the proper way.

“It is very dangerous to read the Bible with an agenda. That is how the suicide bombers etc found justification in their actions. You do not change the Bible to fit your story.”

“We are just following Jesus to address God as Father. He is certainly not a male or female.”

On pluralism- exclusiveness of Christianity

“I have to say that Christianity is exceedingly narrow.”

“It is up to God to choose the way of salvation not us.”

On Baha’i- the all-encompassing religion

“All worldviews are exclusive to the detriment of others.”

“It does not hold water. All religions are different. It can’t possibly from the same God.”

“If you believe that the Bible is true then the Quran must be wrong. There can only be one truth.”

“If they are multiple ways to salvation why Jesus had to die on the cross? What is the meaning of that salvation?”

On Islam- isn’t it inspired by God as well?

There are huge similarities between the Quran and Bible.

“The Arabs are pretty familiar with the Bible stories at that time. ”

Are you implying plagiarism?

“The rule of Ramadan indicates that Muhammad is clearly oblivious of the fact that there are places on earth where the sun never set.”

On the divine call

“There are Muslims that convert after Jesus appeared in their dreams. They remain firm in face of various prosecutions and intolerance.”

“There are tribes that had been waiting for generations for the missionary to bring them the Bible as indicated in their dreams.”

“The Chinese characters contain the hidden message of the creation.”

“God has prepared human for his message long time ago. ”

Rules and leeway

2007-03-12T16:11:00.000-07:00

Rules are made to be broken. Although it does not sound proper, it certainly have some degree of truth.

There are few Hard and fast rules. Most rules are just convention or even for the ease of governance that allow space for manipulation.

I always give the example of masturbation. Society is never in a position to encourage and yet I am sure most of the teenagers try it sometime in their life. Does the social stability ever been jeopardized by breach of rules?

Certainly it would be foolish to forbid it completely.

I can never imagine anyone to adhere strictly to the moral teaching and restrain himself for some meaningless purpose. Omg the organ has been on your body for twenty years and you don’t even know how to operate it? If in the end the poor fellow is sexually incompetent who is to blame? Even monkeys need to practice sexual postures in order to gain sexual maturity.

Is he Morally perfect or just pure dumb?

The same applies for rules governing playing truancy, cheating, smoking, drinking…

If there is no breach of rules, there won't be any progress for mankind.

Only those brave enough can have new discoveries. When they grow up they will establish new rules.

If old rules are never challenged new rules will never be set up. That is how society progress. We don’t know which rules work best and some rules probably work well for the moment only.

On the other hand, we can do away with rules completely. That will be confusion, no guidance and nothing to follow/break.

The key is set up the rules for the general people and leave the leeway for those capable of breaking them.

I like the way Dalai Lama put it in a more subtle way: learn the rules so you know how to break them properly. That’s what I call the wisdom of life.

Believe

2007-02-05T16:52:00.000-08:00

As Shayne pointed out we cannot reject an argument out of personal distaste, the so called “eew” factor; on the same ground I think that we cannot approve a proposal because it appeals to us emotionally or psychologically. That is the basic rationale of debate as applied to same sex marriage and to all debatable topics.

When it comes to the believe in god, things become a bit complicated as both parties agree on the fact that no one can satisfactorily disprove or prove the existence of a metaphysical entity. It is beyond the human perception to deduce or conclude on something “beyond the physical realm”. Thus we shall call a believe in god as “faith”.

Then it is all reduced to individual interpretation of god according to their own faiths. This is what dismiss the whole debate as most speakers then resorted to personal reason of believing in a god. Personal experience never make a good argument, certainly not for me. I am the kind of person that insist on the truth. I believe that something is never justifiable because of personal liking or disliking. This might explain why I can't be a good debater as I am not strongly opinionated. I tend to dismiss my personal preference, detach from my personal experience in probing the reality.

So we shall explore from the philosophical point of view. A theory of probability introduced by the first speaker, a philosophy professor from the Oxford University, came under a lot of criticisms from the opposition speakers. The fact that the formation of precisely well-controlled, habitable universe is highly improbable does not entail a creator to fine tune the universe. A counter argument offered by the opposition speaker tacitly refuted the whole logic: in a global lottery which involves 6 billion people some lucky guy just won the lottery. Does he need an explanation for winning against the enormous odds? Pure chance can make improbable things.

The other main argument put forward by the opposition side is suffering. How could a almighty benevolent god allows suffering in this world at all? And by the sheer amount of sufferings that we witness throughout human history it makes believing in god absurd if not logically incoherent. The speaker then presented us with an alternative god who is all evil and argued that it is logically consistent, if you choose to believe all theories that try to explain about an all good god that allows suffering on the earth. This is coined as the mirror argument.

Lastly there are people that believe because of practicality. Maths is cited as an example which we can't prove some of the most fundamental theories and yet based on these axioms maths achieve a great deal in science and technology development. Believe in god, or in a religion, at least it is conferring some comfort to our souls and let people have something to count on when we feel uncertain or fearful of the unknown. This is the kind of thinking which allegedly forms the basis of religion and the creation of the image of god. A “gamble theory” was proposed saying that: your faith in god is kind of a life gamble, if you believe in god and in the end there is no such thing, you have nothing to lost as you will be dead then; however if god really exist then you are stuck. I can see a look of demur on the priest’s face. When religion becomes a bargain… then the theory continues: after all what is the worst thing that can happen? Surely such unreasoned statement incurred a lot of objections. As Derek said religion can bring out the best in humanity as well as the worst bit of human. It is no doubt religions have contributed significantly to human good, as the opposition speaker acknowledge, just that we shall just ditch the notion of god.

However the removal of god from religion raises some concern about the role of god in setting the moral yardstick in the society. Arguably an theism ethics is harder to established, if it can be done at all. Conner vehemently argue for the opposite by proposing that every human should take charge of their own morality and not depend it on some external divine judgment. The concept of no all good god forces us to being entirely responsible for our actions and he see no point in drawing in god in any sort of ethical consideration. Some worry that such complacency could lead to an anthrocentric stand point.

The theory of control

2006-12-26T17:32:00.000-08:00

I remember someone made the remark that control is the key to happiness. Thinking of the word control conjures up feeling of mastery, in power, certainty and ability to manipulate. Yes, if you can control you can do whatever to suit yourself. If you can afford a car or better still a helicopter, you have control of your commuting and do not have to wait for buses or stuck in the traffic jam. If you own a firm you can determine you own working time and not the other way round.

The two examples cited are related to money. More control actually comes from political power. If you are the superior you can command your subordinates. If you are the president theoretically you can control the life of all people in your country. Even if you are just a primary school teacher you can still control your students. Control gives us a sense of superiority and feeling of in power.

People not in control seldom feel happy. If you can't control your own body you are no where near to happiness. Patients with Broca’s aphasia often get frustrated of their ability to express their thoughts; people with Parkinson’s disease are more susceptible to depression; and a complete paralysis of body is likely to leave one in complete dejection.

Thus the first and foremost is the control of one’s body, movement, behaviour and mind. While controlling your own life is of utmost important, people are far more interested in controlling other people’s lives. However controlling others is by far the hardest part because everyone resists control from others. teenagers don’t like to be controlled by their parents. Everyone undergo such rebellious age to find their own identity and to be in control of their lives. The one thing human always wanted to control is our affinity to others. The people that I love vs the people that love me, this is the hardest problem in love but unfortunately there is no way to control love.

Although our control of other human’s behaviours is rather limited our control of inanimate objects is quite remarkable. Human beings have been attempting to control nature since the early time of civilization. Technology can thus be described as the study of controlling nature: how to predict and change things. From the weather, the living condition, the food we eat to the sex of our children and our health. We intend to know everything so that we can manipulate nature at our own will. Sadly there is always resistance to control both from nature itself and from within the human race.

These group of people are known as religious people. In fact such people hold a totally different view on happiness, that is, contentment. They think that we shall all be contented with what we have and not demand for more control of nature, especially area of life and death which deemed to infringe on god’s sovereignty. According to them nature is the creation of god thus should not be tampered with. We should render the power of control to god, essentially he is the highest controlling power of the universe.

Whether god did create this universe is a moot point. here we shall focus on the notion that contentment can bring happiness. It sounds plausible that if you are always contented then you should be happy always. Now consider this. In the first example if you are stuck in a traffic jam since you can't do anything you just have to console yourself with the thought that everyone else is also in the jam. That is when people have the idea that contentment can bring happiness. However arguably if you are given the ability to clear the traffic jam and go home sooner won't you be happier then? Thus such contentment shall be seen as a failure to control and the adaptation of psychology in order to reduce the frustration due to the failure.

Human only submit the power of control when they feel that they can't control. In the ancient time people can't control (or predict) rain fall so they submit (ascribe) the control to god and let him assume control. Human today have marched a long way from rain dances rituals to get rain. With the advancement of meteorology human are now capable of rainmaking by cloud seeding thus controlling rain. Why shall we give up this control and be contented with a long draught and withering plants?

The same logic applies to other areas of science. Once we were ignorant so we submitted the power to god but now that we know how to control why should we give it up? If we can determine the genetic of our children, our lifespan, our birth and death or even our destiny and afterlife, why shall the religious people stop us?

p/s just realize that this relentless pursuit of control is similar to the notion of

Transhumanism >H

Manufacture of dissent – 异议加工厂

2006-12-21T14:02:00.000-08:00

How the marginalized becomes the mainstream

当异议变成主流

Throughout history we learned that the human society is never homogenous. There are all sort of people that exist and the mainstream have to deal to each of them accordingly. From the black/ slaves, the feminists, the animal rights advocators, to the disabled and homosexuals, from the political activists to the religious ones, everyone wants to find a place in the society. Most of these group started as dissent from the mainstream views (e.g. Christianity emerges among the Judaism society) then slowly gain the acknowledgement and support of the public and finally emerges as the mainstream (hegemony), to suppress another dissent. The article discusses about the manufacture and processing of the dissent and how do they

Observe the analogy between an individual and a group of people.

Step 1 the body

You will need a body, which is an organization with tones of members. In this democratic society, quantity is everything. If you can prove that your organization is a significant source of votes worthwhile of supporting you should have no problem in exerting political influence. Anonymous reporting during balloting is usually the way.

Step 2 the behaviour

Action of a body is termed the behaviour. The group need to act out in order to gain attention. Protest, leaflet distribution, seminar are common ways.

Step 3 the history

Doing the usual stuffs above is insufficient – you need a potential issue to exploit. The general public are forgetful they tend not to focus on the general idea unless a specific cases erupted. For instance the government will only take steps to improve road safety when there is a prominent figure died in a traffic accident, or consider about the welfare of the disabled when there people sacrifice unnecessarily – tragedy or litigation is always the tipping point.

But my point here is not just an exploitable issue, the sensational effect fades away quickly with time. We should go beyond an issue: telling story about the group members involved. This is how you can make the appeal long lasting and image of the organization become clearer. Without history, the society members are just a bunch of people without face.

Remember remoteness promotes callous and indifferent, only a true story can break down the barrier and evoke empathy from the public. Only then they will realize that these people are real humans with feelings.

距离让人保持冷漠。对人们来说边缘团体只是面孔模糊的一群。唯有真实的故事才能让人感同身受，明白他们其实也是有血有肉的一个人。

Step 4 the soul

As the group evolved the ideology of the organization will evolve as well. Now they need reasons to back them up and arguments to put forward so that they can fight with the mainstream ideologically. Because no matter how great is the grassroots movement in step 3, it is ultimately the ideology that will make a difference in the parliament. Thus the ability to convince the MPs lies on how sophisticated and impressive the philosophy of the group.

学说是一个组织的灵魂。学者之流最喜欢搞形而上学的东西，但理论却是说服反对派最有效的方法。

Notice the sequence of the emergence (body -> soul). All organization went through the same struggle before they can revolutionize the mainstream. They first gather with a rudimentary believe then as the institution become more established the philosophy will serve to reinforce their action and believe. People do not become communists after reading das capital by Karl Marx, instead they join the body then only they start reading it to justify their actions; the same goes for Christianity and other religion, most people are converted bodily (step1) first due to the friendly environment, only then soully (step 4) by reading the bible.

人们通常都是作了选择才为自己的行为找出理论的根据，偏见才会这样不断自圆其说。

You should realize by now that why the Establishment likes to suppress the freedom of association (step 1) and freedom of expression (step 4). The government tends to use media control as a means of social control to repress any dissent. However thanks to the internet and the emergence web 2.0, dissent is now so unconcealable. We are now heralding the Wiki era where everyone has the rights to voice out their opinions and freedom to express it to the world, uncensored! The feminist can come up with their own feminist theology, the political activists has the liberation theology, the homo group have their queer theology. The Vatican still holds the dominant interpretation of the bible but they are no longer the sole and exclusive interpretations. Everyone has a say in interpreting God’s words. I always believe that debate can help to clarify things. Now I would prefer to see the church employing their logic and reasoning to fight in various arguments rather than just employing violence to oppress all the different voices, as they used to do.

第二代网络宣告的是自由言论的时代：每个人都能以自己的观点来诠释理论，打破了过去一言堂的僵直状态。唯有百家争鸣，才能让真理越辩越明。

Don’t take for granted – Instinctive knowledge

2006-12-16T17:58:00.000-08:00

How instinct can cheat you

There are something you believe instinctively but might not be correct. The complexity and symmetric of the universe inclines us to suppose a Creator that designed everything. However the truth is the universe and life on earth evolves by natural selection without any divine intervention. In his latest book The Delusion of God Richard Dawkins argues that our sense of religion and creator is an accidental by-product of our judgment and intuition of the external environment. Just like children like to ascribe purpose to everything, we all tend to think that the world was designed with a distinct purpose. This religious instinct is misleading us into believing in god.

On the contrary, there are also things that you reject instinctively (a heresy) might be true.

People think that the notion that we have sexual desire towards our parents are absurd and ridiculous. However the idea of Oedipus complex now has wide currency in explaining of the origin of the super-ego. According to Freud, during the phallic stage of a child’s psychosexual development, the infant will direct his sexual desire towards the mother. This process is important for the development of the normal sexual behaviours in the later stage of life.

When instinct fails

Instinct might be fallible and may not be a reliable guide in understanding the reality about ourselves. However they could be very useful in some areas thus conferring certain selective advantages necessary for the survival of the species.

On the same ground of Oedipus complex, people ask why we are not sexually attracted to our siblings. See Genetic sexual attraction. We tend to choose partner with similar level of education, background and upbringing, sharing the same sphere of life and hobbies but we never consider our siblings as one of the options. The reason is clear: it simply disgust us to think of having sex within the family members. Just like animals, human have a natural aversion to inbreeding. See Westermarck effect We will instinctively think that incest is wrong. There is a biological basis for not favouring incest because it will lead to an increase in homozygosity and an accumulation of deleterious recessive genes.

So what will happen when the instinct is not working? It is not surprise to find that parties involved in incest do not feel the guilt because they are not driven by the instinct (of aversion). In this respect we can deduce that: people don’t do incest not because we consciously choose not to, but we are refrained from doing so by our instinct. Using the same argument, for someone that have incestuous relationship, they don’t consciously choose to do so but there might be some defects in the protective instinct. They shall not be morally liable for that because they don’t have a say in this. Arguably this is a genetic defect that resulted in a psychosexual disorder.

Similar argument could be applied to homosexuality. You don’t have sex with people of the same sex not because you consciously avoid to, but it is the inbuilt biological mechanism that discourage that. Thus for somebody who is born gay, they do not make the choice of being gay but rather the protective instinct is malfunctioning.

However the biological defect conclusion is reached basing on the instinctive notion (again!) that heterosexual is normal and natural. But nature is somehow more complex than we think. In the animal kingdom homosexual behaviours are ubiquitous which arguably has some evolutionary advantage to minimize intraspecies aggression. Nature is rarely divisive (polymorphy) but rather there are normal distribution in all traits and inheritance e.g. height and weight. In this respect μ ± 2σ only defines the majority not the normality.

About knowing

2006-12-15T18:16:00.000-08:00

s1 if you want to know:

while knowing nothing causes fear, knowing everything is even worse.

People are fearful when they know nothing – they are rushed to the A&E and diagnosed with a pneumothorax or extradural haematoma, etc.. The moment they know about that they are terrified and no amount of explanation from the doctor can dispel the doubt and uncertainty. Sometimes people wonder that if they were the doctor they wouldn’t be so afraid. The truth, perhaps, is the complete opposite. Having spending five years un the med school and learning pathology well, the doctors will know every single details of his disease, including the worst complications and the worst outcomes that it could be.

Then who are the fearless ones? In my opinion these are the medical students half way through their course: they only have a smattering of medical knowledge and yet they think they know the nature of the illness well. They understand the jargons used so they are not baffled by the explanation offered by the doctors or books; in the same time they don’t know how bad things can go so they can just leave everything to the doctors. So I concluded that: people with incomplete knowledge fear the least.

一知半解的人最无畏。

Then I realized why people get married before they move in and live together. They think they know each other so well but in fact they don’t know about the living habits of each others. the fact is: You won’t marry someone that you don’t know, similarly you won’t marry someone that you know thoroughly. (this is the other explanation of why people don’t do incest.) That’s why all the religious people forbid cohabitation because it is such an effective way of seeing how your spouse will behave once you two move in together that it actually causes marriage rate to decline. After living together for some time you will probably rejoice that luckily I didn’t commit myself so early.

Thus to reiterate, for those who wants to know more to make an “informed decision”, while knowing nothing creates fear, knowing everything is even worse.

s2 if you don’t know

In case of doubt, make it sounds convincing

If you can fool everyone, you are the winner.

Corollary: if you can fool everyone, including yourself, you will be the happiest person on the earth.

When I was volunteering myself as a patient, I had the opportunity of observing other students with different style of clinical presentation. I was so impressed by some students who managed to present the history so well that the examiners even nodded as if in complete agreement. Essentially what he is presenting is only the pre-set history but he just have the ability to make it sounds so convincing, reassuring and professional, even to the learned medical ears. If I were his patient I will definitely have no doubt in his clinical skills and expertise.

Thus the art of convincing is really an imperative skills for all clinicians, sometimes more important than clinical skills itself. It is a matter of how well you present your stuffs, not how well you know your stuffs. If you seriously don’t know a thing you just need to convince others that you actually know, in order to pass the clinical exam and become a doctor. Most of the time the sense of assurance the patients have will do wonders: we term this as “the placebo effect”. In fact, you shall always take care of the patient’s psychology as well as his physical body.

Even if you ever go into trouble because of your incompetence, the art of convincing will still save your ass in front of the judges. If you can't do that make sure you get yourself a really good lawyer to defend yourself. You will need him some point in time even though you can be confident that you won't become part of the medical negligence doctors. (This is the consensus that we reach after the night discussing ethical problems with Sheng.)

The conclusion: if you can fool all your way through you are the winner by definition. You don’t actually need to be successful, you just need to “appear” successful. Better still if you can fool yourself as well. Keep in mind that you are not deceiving anybody, because you genuinely think that it is the truth. This is the highest level of lying. Not detectable by a lying machine.

Thus to reiterate: for those who afraid that you don’t know enough, master the art of convincing.

s3 you better don’t know

Ignorance is happiness

The art of convincing is applicable to every field of life, but so far religion is the only field that I observe uses this tactic so extensively and effectively. I remembered hearing somebody commented on religion which I think is a classic quote: “people are like that one, the more miraculous and incredible you sound the more they will believe in you.”

Two days ago when I was browsing a forum and I stumbled over an article about the miraculous revival of a Burma monk. The monk claimed that he was died for a few days and he saw God in the heaven. Along his way he observed some people including Buddha being punished in the fire lake, the reason being “they do not believe in the eternal God”. This ex-monk allegedly never heard about Christianity before later become an earnest Christians… see original article

There are some criticism and quarrel ensued but I am not going to comment on this article.

I am thinking about some other questions about religion. There was a poll in the same forum before entitle: will the world be better off without religion? Two years ago my response will definitely be “of course not”. I think I don’t know the answer now.

I have been reading about books like “Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence”. The book tries to explain the fatal attraction between religion and voilence and the susceptiblity of religion to distortion by the extremists. This above article somehow makes me understand what Marx meant by “religion is the opium of the people”. Some religions just appear to be more like a cult. I found myself started to appreciate the fact that Chinese is one the few races in the world that does not have their own religion. I used to be ashamed of that but now I see a good point. One thing I learn from this race is that irreligion is not immoral. People like to accuse atheist of does not believe in god and moral. See atheism. I believe that there is a common universal code of morality that exist outside of human, and god. See moral universalism.

I still maintains myself to be a secularist and atheist. I shall not inculcate my children any notion of religion. They should be morally responsible to themselves, not to me or any higher being.

Thus to reinforce: there are some things like the creation of universe and after life are better left unknown before you can really grasp on the meaning of life. This knowledge won't help you to become a better person instead it can harm you if you don’t know about yourself.

未知生，焉知死。

Thus Ignorance is happiness.

公平

2006-07-25T06:05:00.000-07:00

食堂经营权招标。竞标结果又是C公司胜出。一向对C公司所售的食物颇有怨言的学生不解，集体到校长室问个明白。校长倒也利落透明，二话不说就把三家公司的竞标单出示给学生看。其中A公司提供的食物选择最多，B公司的食物售价最便宜，C公司的竞争条件则平平无奇。那为什么C公司又会得标？学生直问。校长不慌不忙的指着竞标单上的一行字：公司答应将每年所得盈利的10巴仙捐献给建校基金。校长继道：新校舍建好后人人都可以受惠，这不是很公平吗？学生哑然。

商业社会竞争各出奇谋，表面上看来一点都没有错。C公司自知没有竞争优势，就用银弹攻势。如果C公司只是将利益提供给校长一个人，这就是贿赂。现在利益人人均分，算不算公平呢？

〉〉
官场上朋党勾结所见不鲜，肥水不流外人田。官场外常有人在叫嚣：消灭朋党主义，恢复公平招标。看到利益集中在一小撮人的手上的确是很令人愤愤不平。我在想：我们争取公平，是不是也是为了争取更多自己的利益？还是为了减少心理的不平衡？人人有份，就是公平吗？

〉〉
辩论界有个有趣的现象。凡举两雄相争的比赛，最佳辩论员奖通常都落在败方手中。可能纯粹是巧合。也有人说：胜出的队伍四平八稳，胜在团体合作及默契，亚军人马是靠几个英雄撑场面，平均素质不理想。有人则戏谑：最佳辩论员奖似乎已沦为安慰奖。真相如何，没有人知道。

听说一些学术期刊有个不成文的规定：同一个作者的稿件不宜刊登得太频密。这是做是为了杜绝某些作者霸占版位，让其他作者也有机会发表，同时也以示公正，避免编辑部做人情的嫌疑。今年四月，独立新闻在线因拒登某知名作家的来稿而被指有政治议程。网络上有人抨击这项规定，认为这种平均主义只会加剧学术界的不公正。为何一心要建立公正的主编会沦为不公正的根源呢？

评论说，遴选稿件就应该根据来稿的素质来甄选，而不是作者的曝光率。选贤与能，应该外举不避仇，内举不避亲。这是学术期刊唯一的标准，否则就会沦为人际关系的平衡杆。

公平，应该用什么标准呢？学生认为应该针对食物本身选择食堂业者，但校长认为应该考虑学校整体的利益。

〉〉
大家说：绩效制是最公平的制度，因为它只考虑学生的成绩。有人不平，认为这对活跃于课外活动的学生不公平，于是绩效便加入了10巴仙的课外活动。当有人因课外活动上不到大学后，他们又觉得不公平了。

我说：绩效制对成绩不理想的人最不公平。多少热血青年因为成绩不允许而被迫放弃自己的理想和兴趣。我的朋友真心想要奉献自己的生命救济别人，无奈以他们的成绩去申请医学系简直是自讨没趣。每年马华都会帮所谓的优秀生上诉，那么非优秀生呢？

在Desperate Housewives一剧中，Gabrielle 在选购宝宝时直言：法律不会保护丑人。事实上，法律也不保护笨人。但歧视成绩不理想的人就是理所当然的吗？学校里有的学生学习能力较低，他们更需要优秀的老师来调教。将好的老师分配到放牛班公平吗？随机分配老师公平吗？

谁要追求公平？

部分章节转载西安交大科技在线 http://www.xjtust.com

餐桌团结

2006-07-01T23:05:00.000-07:00

一年前当我初到爱尔兰时，我曾想要写一篇关于团结与文化交融的文章。我观察到马来西亚的学生在介绍自己的国家时都不会忘记提起我们三大民族的食物。身为华裔的我们可能不太熟悉其他民族的文化，但谈到吃的，大家都能侃侃而谈而且越谈越兴奋，谈到个个口齿垂涎。这种情况令我推想食物是真正能够团结国民的方法。我又想到满汉全席，据说其发明就是为了团结汉族和满族。我进一步联想到人类的团结也是通过分享食物来达到推广和交融文化的目的。（这点中国人做得尤其出色。）地球村的建立有多少好处没有多少人会理解，但能够吃到各国的美食却是很多人乐见其成的。为餐桌团结干杯！

日子久了，我开始发现餐桌团结方案有点行不通。虽然人人同一张口，吃的东西却不一样。我们的马来和印度同胞都有宗教上的禁忌，某些食物碰不得。一起煮食几次后我发现，很多马来同学虽也知道cha kuey tiao 或wantan mi，但他们都是只听过没吃过。就连火锅，他们亦不知道到底是怎么个吃法。后来我认真地想一想，餐桌其实充满了禁区和地雷，吃是人类文化最根本也最重要的一个环节，自然会有很多民族或宗教的设限掺杂其中，我们无法改变这些限制，所以要用食物来团结人类是不实际的。

今天在餐馆吃饭，我在想有多少间华人餐馆肯将自己的餐馆变成halal 的，也许他们根本就不屑巫裔市场，或者他们认为即使是halal的华人餐馆，马来人也不敢/会光顾。结果许多马来人就只能过门而不入，闻其名而不知其味。文化交融须要妥协和诚意，但目前似乎没有华人要做第一步。所以以后我再也不敢讲食物团结国民了。

文化交融
我第一次在爱尔兰听到Theva 谈起 Jiwang即马来情歌。这算是大马的特产但原谅我，我一首歌都不知道。（除了Belaian Jiwa，哈！）我连港台的中文歌都不太留意，怎么还有时间会去关注马来歌呢？我不知道有多少个华人像我一样对马来乐坛一无所知，不过我相信很多人宁愿去听英语歌、日语歌、韩语歌，最后才会想到马来语歌。这不是一个很正常的现象。

我回来不久就发现到爱FM有时会播出一些马来语歌。据我所知这是新闻部的规定。我翻阅报章有人就批评此政策，认为这不伦不类，无助于团结国民等等。我倒觉得这至少让我们能够接触到马来文化。有认识就有交流的机会。其实马来乐坛也不乏精彩的歌曲，Akademi Fantasia 就搞到有声有色。今天在餐馆吃饭欣闻也有华人追看捧场此节目。我虽然不会刻意去追看但至少我不会排斥观看这本地娱乐界的盛事。有的华人一看到是马来电视节目就没有兴趣看下去，有的华裔听众更是一听见Ai FM 播马来歌曲就立即转台（报章上的评语中看到的），这不是很极端吗？听一下会死啊？我真地想问问那位听众。

文化自卑

2006-06-30T03:17:00.000-07:00

朋友的两个爱尔兰小孩来马来西亚度假。我陪他们打篮球。走到球场时，恰好有几个小孩在那里玩。虽然都是华人，我发现他们比本地的同龄小孩高了一截。加上他们白皙的肌肤和一口令人发？的华语，他们看起来十足是个老外。经过简短的介绍后，大家就开始球赛。

比赛进行得很顺利，高个子投篮容易，矮个子身手敏捷，双方算是有攻有守，势均力敌。不久我听到有人在窃窃私语：咦，他酱子不是double吗？另一个本地小孩应声：可能外国的打法就是酱的啦。我循声看过去，嗯，果然是犯规，可是那班小孩并没有作声。

球赛散后我在想，为什么他们连这么明显的犯规都没有举出来呢？是不知道，还是不敢？还是要给我们远道而来的游客面子？刚才那个小孩的回应，让我觉得是他们对自己没有信心，认为“外国人”所做的应该是对的。如果我的猜想属实的话，这真是件不幸的事。

这种文化自卑的现象很常见，它不只是崇洋那么简单，而是认为外国文化比自身文化优越的盲目崇拜。有的人看到对方是外国人，马上就矮了半截，不敢和别人争辩；或者是认为：外国人这么说一定有他们的道理，外国的研究报告比较可靠；有的人只相信用英文、满口术语的医生；专家一讲高深的英语或使用一些奇怪的术语他们就佩服得五体投地，觉得他们是一流的。同样的内容用浅显的华语讲他们就瞧不起讲师了。甚至是一些企业专程请外国的CEO来充场面，这些都是文化自卑。

振兴文化

世界那么大，很多领域的规矩都是“外国人”制定的，我们站在全球化的平台，心理上还会战战兢兢，怕自己的不够外国的好，怕被别人讥笑为孤陋寡闻。这种焦虑是好的，至少会提升我们赶上国际水准。但有时我会想，什么时候我们才可以有制定规格的“话事权”呢？什么时候我们才可以让自己的文化变成强势文化呢？

要成为强国的第一步当然是得自强，不过要让自己的文化变成强势文化却简单的多了。不用大洒金钱在外国电视上打广告，不用劳民伤财地办文化节，不用培养十个诺贝尔文学奖得主，关键其实在：娱乐。用娱乐输出文化是最有效的方法。当一个国家的娱乐事业发达，其他国家就会竞相购买它的娱乐。看看美国，如今美国文化已经深入民间，快餐店林立，甚至变成了西方文化的代名词。

Memory implanting

2006-06-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

记忆移植的冲击—— 阅《功夫》有感

我第一个想起的是黄骏死后的去向。据我对佛教轮回的理解，一个人的轮回取决于他累世的念头和行为。他的所作所为、记忆影像（“法尘”）会收藏在他的阿赖耶识，在人死后引导中阴身的去向。关伯伯至死都执信自己是黄骏，为了正义战死，他是否因此而能投身天人道？

“功夫”这个故事将催眠提升到记忆移植的层次，打开了思想改造的无限可能性，也触发了改造阿赖耶识进而改变命运的问题。所谓因缘果报，“因”常被喻为八识田的种子，如果可以改造记忆，自然就能达到改造命运的目的。将不好的种子悉数剔除，就没有了恶的业报。

有人可能坚持认为故事中Hydra 只能移植一个离奇的记忆和武功的锻炼，但关先生坚信的浩然正气是他自己性格使然，这是无法移植的部分，也是人性的可贵之处。但事实上，读过心理学的人都知道人脑和性格的息息相关。大脑受创后性情大变的例子很多， Phineas Gage 1848 是历史上首宗引起心理学家兴趣的个案。比较起来，要改变一个人的性格反而容易得多了。

如果记忆可以改造，性格可以塑造，这将对人性道德造成何等的冲击。宗教理论面临破产，那只是其次的问题。

向种族主义说不

2006-06-27T03:30:00.000-07:00

Say no to racism

世界杯开踢。我也到麻麻档看球，凑凑热闹。那晚的赛事是巴西对垒加纳。比赛开始之前，所有球员都会绕场，然后例行的展开“向种族主义说不”的横幅。种族主义？世界杯不是更应该防范过于炽热的爱国主义吗？

比赛开始。我观察看球的人群，有的人全程关注，目不转睛；但有些人只是射门的时刻紧张，其他时候他们眼皮都不抬一下。后者我想应该是赌徒，他们关心自己的荷包多于球员的球技。有的人看球的时候不说话，但谈话的人讨论的内容都离不开足球。不过有一桌的交谈却吸引了我。他们在谈种族主义。不是大马的，而是发生在国外的种族主义，黑人与白人的问题。

有人说过：种族主义的笑话最好笑。因为我们对其他民族总会有一些刻板印象，抓住这些特征或缺点就能够引起共鸣。想必这句话果然不错，因为那桌的人不时会哄然大笑。

赛事进行着，我开始听到有人骂类似“死黑人”的字眼。还有一些巴西的拥趸则看不起非洲队伍。我猜想那位仁兄应该从没见过一位黑人。有时我们会不喜欢某些种族，但连如果素未谋面的黑人都可以歧视，种族主义真是无远弗届。

我开始理解那横幅的用意。

礼貌

2006-06-26T18:51:00.000-07:00

根据《读者文摘》的调查，吉隆坡被选为倒数第三最有礼貌的城市。
我们的部长在急于反驳之前，到底到过多少个榜内的都市？更重要的是，他们是微服私访，还是左右护驾？一个城市的服务态度，体现在一般的大街小巷、普通店铺、餐饮地点，还有公共交通系统。像我国的轻快铁，除了尊贵的黄部长常搭之外，还有那个部长是常客呢？如果他们从不在街头行走，他们如何能评价我国的礼貌程度呢？

当我们说一个人很有礼貌时，通常是指他礼敬长辈。我总觉得儒家的“礼”是一种由上至下的礼仪，只是一种行为规范的准则，尤其旨在巩固当权者政权的手段；而不是平等基础的“礼貌”，对其他人表达谢意。难道礼貌真的也不是我们的文化吗？

旅行札记：处理情绪

2006-06-17T21:22:00.000-07:00

从抵达Salzburg下车的那一刻开始我就很不爽。司机的态度令我实在有气，加上天气酷热，在我还未踏进宿舍时又有一只该死的小虫飞进我的眼睛然后死在里面，还有刻意拖延时间的柜台小姐，我整张脸都变黑了。放了行李后我们便出门去网咖，炎热的天气使我又烦躁起来。随行的还有刚认识的澳洲朋友Adam，刚才和他说话时我还很理智，但现在我很火大，谁在这个时候惹我我一定会狠狠地痛殴他一顿。我已被怒火冲昏了头，我甚至自信学了半年的永春武术至少可把那不顺眼的家伙打倒在地上。

进了网咖开始传送我的照片。在等待的当儿网咖外面有只狗在吠人。我在想如果我早5分钟遇上那只狗我一定把它打得稀巴烂，不成狗形。网咖里面又有两个王八在大声通话。我一脸阴沉的死盯着电脑荧幕，心里在想几时要站起来给你们一记拳头。打就打啊，谁怕谁？接着我便把照片传入我的行动硬碟。有了上次失败的经历，我只是冷冷地看着电脑，看看今天可以多倒霉。

出乎意料的，一向来给我麻烦的行动硬碟竟然顺利完成任务。我十分惊喜，之前的不愉快马上一扫而空。然后我高兴地问宏达，他还没有传送完。我脱机后还轻松的和Adam的女友对话。过后我把行动硬碟借给宏达传送，但却遭到和我上次一样的情况。他试了三次后还是失败。我建议他换另一架电脑试试，他的语气非常不耐烦。花了一个小时传送却徒劳无功，网咖的收费则继续攀高，我感觉到另一座火山就快要爆发了。我很明白那种火滚的滋味，因为半个小时前的我就是这样的。

折腾了两个小时我们才离开网咖。和亚当道别后我们走到城市，这时大家的怨气都消失了。我回想一下，惊讶自己的情绪变化可以那么大，也庆幸刚才没有出手打人，不然现在的我应该会在警察局里。想到自己一生气就只想到要打人泄愤，自觉真是修行不到家。平时读的什么忍辱、嗔恚毒全都忘得一干二净。我告诫自己要成熟的处理自己的情绪。小时候生气我会想“如何发作”（才有惊天动地的效果），现在我应该学习“如何不发作”。

说了不发作，两天后在Salzburg的古堡前我又看售票员不顺眼了。这次我赖天气。热天气真的会使人心浮气躁，所以外国的司机总是彬彬有礼，马来西亚就有那么多路霸。在古堡里找那个要命的指示牌使我忍不住又要咆哮了。参观完毕后，夜幕降临天气转凉我已平静下来了。

因为这两次的发火经验，加上那些恼人的小虫，我对salzburg的印象大打折扣。最重要的是，我们抵达此城市时已经是山穷水尽了。没钱旅游当然无法玩得尽兴。如果有人问起我对这个《音乐之声》故乡的看法，我的评价自然不会太好。

后记
在等巴士回家的途中在报纸上读到“travel trauma”旅行压力
Two in five holidaymakers think going on trips is more stressful than a visit to the dentist or seeing the in-laws. On average, they waste almost 31 hours of their breaks away trying to get over the strain of crowded airport, family arguments and lost luggage, a survey from American Express Platinum found. They said that travel trauma is the aspect of a holiday most likely to send their stress level soaring.
Herald AM, 21 June

旅行札记：兴趣和性格

2006-06-17T11:57:00.000-07:00

最近一直想起一些老掉牙的问题。

两个人旅行一段时间后，我开始思考和人相处的问题。因为我发现我和旅伴不是很契合，我们关注的事情都不太一样。这又回到兴趣和性格的老问题：找一个伴侣/拍档，应该选择“兴趣相异，性格相同”还是“兴趣相投，性格互补”？

旅行札记：多少个和尚？

2006-06-17T11:38:00.000-07:00

我想起我第一次到英国旅行时，还曾夸言：一个人旅人有什么好怕的？以前我都是独来独往的到处游走，一个人的孤寂算不了什么。

但在奥地利这几天经历了几起（很多次）赶火车事件，我开始庆幸我不是一个人。很多时候我的观察及判断都不一定正确，多亏了宏达的指点及提醒，我才免去了许多冤枉路。一个人独自面对问题时会有种无力感，两个人一起想办法就强多了。两个人心理上可以依赖对方，就算做错了决定也有人陪着一起死，就不会那么大压力。

更重要的，两个人旅行可以分享一切。
“分享的快乐会乘2，分担的忧愁会成 ½”
当我们一起吃饭时，我可以尝试多一份味道；
当我站在美景前，我不用烦恼如何将自己摄入镜头；
当我快跑不动时，你的脚步声让我继续撑下去；
当我做一些疯狂的事时，难得有个人可以调侃我或见证我；
当我们撩弄动物时，还有个人在旁边抓相机…

所以当台湾的俊荣劝说不好一个人旅行时我是衷心的附和的。“看到什么有趣的事物也只能在心里对自己说‘好可爱的苹果啊！’”，他很传神的把独自旅行的苦况表达出来。

我光是想像这画面都觉得很惨。
一个人旅行？别傻了。

在火车上时我又想，两个人旅行的确很好，那三个人呢？然后我想起三个和尚没水喝的故事，心中雪亮。哈，原来古人很早就知道“两个刚刚好”，我还须要想些什么呢？

旅行札记：赌博2

2006-06-15T11:51:00.000-07:00

人人都会赌博，华人尤其爱赌，这点台湾的诗伟也有同感。我们什么都能赌，火车会在哪个站停下也要赌。赌博，仿若是与生俱来的，在面对各种不确定性时作个抉择，看看是否能够扳回一局。如果要套用“自私的基因”的论调，我会说生物在面对自然界的不确定性及他人的欺诈，很多时候要懂得如何判断何时该进攻/逃逸，何时该坚持/弃守资源。能够迅速地做出判断变成一个重要的品质，赌博的基因也因此而流传下来了。当然这只是个故事。

买了折扣票后，我不断安慰自己说：至少我是花钱买安心，不用提心吊胆地搭火车，心理上则继续期待赌局开盘的结果，想知道我是否做了对的决定。结果第一场最大的赌局：从维也纳到林茨，我输了。检票员没有检查我们两人的折扣卡。虽然我没有参与赌局，但开盘的那一刻我还是像输了般泄气。我不是心痛钱，只是有一种赌输了的感慨。真背！

更糟的事情还等着我：随后的三趟火车都没有人检查！连一个检票员都没有！我真是一败涂地。我已经没有话好说了。现在讲早知道之类的话也是无济于事。我累垮在座位上，已经不想理会赌博的事了…

旅行札记：赌博1

2006-06-14T11:50:00.000-07:00

不知是不是受到“自私的基因”那本书的影响，我开始计算成本效益cost benefit.

在火车上被检票员发现之后，我花了整个车程的时间在计算买学生折扣卡的支付和收益。一开始我也不知道要用怎样的模式，换了几种方法后，我终于把所有收支列出来，并算出买或不买的差异。当所有数字只是乱糟糟的，买或不买只是个选择问题；一旦所有的可能收益都列出来后，答案就一目了然了。
但现在买或不买的问题变成了赌博问题。如果我运气够好的话，下几趟火车都没有被抓到呢？

虽然理性的分析会告诉我：赌博是得不偿失的，而且这里的检票员看起来都很认真，我钻漏洞的机会又多大呢？但我仍在踌躇：要不要试试看运气呢？这种情况就像赌徒都知道赌博的预期收益expected gain是负的，但他们还是对此乐此不疲，小钱换大钱嘛！

不管怎样，我对自己厘清的账目感到很满意。我喜欢那种数目清清楚楚的感觉，尤其是自己分析出来的效益，令我觉得我在作理性及有根据的选择。宏达一路都在昏睡，他一张开眼睛我就迫不及待地告诉他我的决定，并将收益表拿给他看。他显然不是很欣赏我的计算工作，只是似懂非懂的点头。然后我又问他一个赌博的问题：现在你在一个赌场，一进门就给你14块，如果你不赌，你可以带14块回家；如果你选择赌就必须参与所有赌局(n≥2)，以两场为例：如果你连胜两场，就得23块；赢一场大的输掉小的一场，18块；反之，12块；两场皆输，7块；你会赌吗？

我的选择？我选择了赌… 不过先买票…

旅行札记：帝王梦

2006-06-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

现在知道为什么以前每个人想要做皇帝了。走进Schöbrunn 王宫的后花园，我的第一个感觉就是：做皇帝真爽！如此辽阔美丽的花园，如果全都是自己一个人的该有多好啊！历史上多少革命先锋打倒了昏庸的皇帝，住进了贪官的豪宅后，慢慢地（或马上）开始认同起贪官搜刮民脂的行为。平日在台下高呼廉洁是多么的容易，一旦有一天自己当权后真正的利益花花银子摆在眼前，要抗拒谈何容易？

所幸帝王制度如今已被推翻，他们的财产变成了国家资源，王宫变成了旅游胜地，我们才有机会浏览这美丽的大花园。赚取的外汇为国家作出了贡献，也算是补偿以前被搜刮人民的后代吧！

以上用语及描述并非是Hapsburg empire真正的历史，仅是为了行文方便。

增闻：英国的Hyde Park 是1635年第一座开放给公众的公园。

政治

2006-04-22T23:38:00.000-07:00

记得多年前，英达丽水开始收费时，人民怨声载道，纷纷罢交排污费。

我爸爸说，他们不应该一开始就收这样高。如果试验性收费低，或甚至提供免费服务，让人民先尝到一点甜头。当人民已接受了收费的事实，然后再慢慢起价。最好是像南北大道般和政府签署一张铁合约，每次起价都有免死金牌，届时人民再不满也只能无可奈何了。当年我年纪还小，对老爸的伟论仍是懵懵懂懂。长大以后，我接触到更多的社会层面及读了几年科学，开始了解到“水煮青蛙”的原理。将青蛙扔进沸腾的热水肯定使到蛙急跳锅；用冷水煮青蛙就服服帖帖，至死都不会挣扎。科学上这叫做“适应”，调节自身体温来适应环境。可以保命，亦可以是致死原因。

今天收到一位朋友转载Jeff Ooi 博客关于多媒体大学里某企业列明种族为招选资格的奖励金海报1。网页中还有许多网友的回应。许多人都把矛头指向那家企业，纷纷批评它的种族作风，还有人要号召别人去杯葛。我独排众议。我认为M 公司只是为了迎合政府的雇员种族政策。我不是要追究责任，只是觉得M公司不应该做到太明显，它大可采纳多媒体大学的建议2，通过大学直接索取“合格申请者”名单，或甚至是在遴选入围者时设立种族固打，让一些申请者直接过关不就行了吗？这种登广告的手法真是拙劣，这些跨国企业还得多多向我国的许多政府机关学习。

如果明目张胆 ,
心里已屈服于制度。反动 “anti-establishment” 大概就是最令人怯缩的罪名了。
急不如缓，明不如暗，这就是政治之道。当政客要合理化一些偏差，首先要暗中进行，慢慢，不可大破大立，操之过急
更改制度、合约、条文、法律、宪法，一劳永逸。
待时机成熟

Accommodate adapt
人民会适应、认命、遗忘。一切既成事实，米已成炊，还能怎样？
张晓卿缓兵之计
风头平息，五年前的反收购势力已不成气候了，今天再谈星洲入主南洋也掀不起什么风波来了。

结语
政治是一局棋。明里来，更多暗里去。只要不撕破脸皮，不赶尽杀绝，政客们永远都有戏唱。揭发政客的假面具须要人民的支持，但偏偏人民也是最善忘、最容易适应的一群。民主的战士们，除了要有热血批判明显的事件性 (incidental) 偏差，也要有冷静应对更多看不到的制度化 (institutional) 的偏差。要参与这局游戏，就要熟悉游戏规则，才能洞悉对手的棋路。

________________
1 http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/04/again_what_are_mmu_motorola_tr.php
2 http://bulletin.mmu.edu.my/v3/view/bulletin_main.mmu?s=34534&by=date

Learned reflex

2006-04-22T16:32:00.000-07:00

“ We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.” Aristotle

熟能生巧
“practice makes perfect”
Learned reflex

Moldability
Adaptability
Biomedically, learning is just the process of building new synapse.
Smart then can be defined physiologically as having many synapse and linking ideas.
More than that.

“considerable practice is needed before expert percussion can be performed. The ability to percuss well count in students’ favour, as it indicates a reasonable amount of experience in the wards.” Tally
Good percussion skill does not imply a good clinician, but a good clinician should have a reasonably good percussion skill.

Is there a way to speed up learning process?
Increase the speed of synapse, axonal transmission… ie. Smarter?
Interference of the nature
Deplete all the energy
Interfere with autonomic nervous functions
Increase cellular activities which can lead to cellular exhaustion and hence hasten their death?
Dramatically increase your learning speed and shorten your own life?
Seriously dramatic.
“neuroscience”

哲学

2006-04-17T17:48:00.000-07:00

哲学是领导人类的先驱
多么动听，但先决条件是哲学家必须言行一致。
空谈不做，只是空中城堡。

中国的百家争鸣最后竟不被承认为哲学。因为他们没有实践。
唯有通过行动，才能显示自己对理论的信心。Strong hold of your own belief.
从自己开始去影响大众。

“要改变世界，先改变自己”-- 甘地

价值观

2006-04-15T01:17:00.000-07:00

是法平等无有高下

万事都平等，只有价值观的差异
人人都平等，只有价值观的差异
超越权利的平等，这是生存意义的平等。
Value is what you value the most.

天下没有懒惰的人，只是他们觉得没有事值得他们去努力。
天下没有勤劳的人，只是他们觉得太多事值得他们去努力。
天下没有慢郎中，只是他们觉得没有事值得他们去急性子。
天下没有蠢人，只是他们还找不到自己所长。

如果你真觉得某件事非常重要，你自然愿意花费时间、下功夫去做。
即使那件事非常无趣。

“god or the girl”
a documentary abt 5 teenagers choosing between becoming priests ie. celibacy or marry just like normal people.

牺牲。
没有说成为牧师就比商人高尚。纯粹是个人选择。
若说牧师牺牲比较大。不然。
如果他真的要做牧师，他自然会欣然接受必要的付出。
“甘愿做，欢喜受”

社会会觉得牧师的职业牺牲较大，所以比较受尊敬。
如果一个人是为了得到那份尊敬而去当牧师，他就会非常在意别人的尊敬。
真正自主的人，那份工作本身就是目的，不是手段。

20060415 night.
了解到我可能不会安分地当医生。

Free will huh?

2006-04-14T18:00:00.000-07:00

An epilogue of talk with Sean

We sometimes think that we have the Free Will. The freedom to choose.
But think deeper. Do we?

Speak of minor things like buying a product.
Our decision are largely influenced by advertisements: on TV, radio, paper, by your friends…
A frightening fact: experiments showed that images introduced can lead people into choosing the otherwise
Affected subconsciously

Let’s say you are deciding to buy a pizza.
Two days ago when you went to your friend’s house you saw your friend is eating brand A pizza. On your way to the supermarket, you caught sight of packaging of the very brand of pizza in the waste bins. When you are arrive at the frozen food department, you realize that brand A is almost sold out while other brands just piling up.

All these hints albeit subtle are always effective in affecting us.
Because we don’t always have a reason to support our choice, that makes us susceptible to influence.
Even if we do have a reason for choosing something, how sure can you be that reason is really YOURs and not ideas inculcated into you?
“malleable”

Talk about major decision in life?
Constrained by our culture, race, family, friends… which oftenly not up to our choice. We can't choose our parents, our language, some even religions. Unfortunately all these are the most deterministic factors in shaping who we are.
Skim through any sociology texts. they will tell you how factors A, B, C etc affect your health, social status, psychology.

Society the media the textbook shape our mind.

Think of your career.

You are not always given the full choices. Just like you are marrying. I hide all the pretty gals and leave you with 3 ugly girls. Only one of the three is so-so. I would not surprise if you end up marrying her. But it would be ludicrous if you claim that you make the choice of your life.
“Restricted choice”

You live in the society with limited options offered to you. If you come from a kampong, you will never have think of becoming a researcher.
If you come from Cambodia, being a neuroscientist would not be in your selection list.

Not knowing makes you unable to choose. Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Knowing too much makes you vulnerable to influence.

Independent thinking huh?
Too bad you can't seclude your mind from the rest of the world and every input to your brain can change your mind.

Let say too bad you are born in the deepest jungle of Amazon. Then I wouldn’t envisage you to become a doctor in anyway. Very unlikely.

If one day when you are 60 years old, you look back your life and think, do you actually chosen this life? How many things are your own free will?

Ok. Speak of unlikely you may think there is always still a chance. Yup. Sometimes miracle happens. Somehow somebody bring you out of the jungle.

What I would say it is unusual for people to break away from the norm. they lead a normal life, complacent with what they have, they achieve, they believe and they choose not to change. Maybe they are afraid to lose.
This is what I call inertia. Reluctance to change.
Remember the childhood dream that you had. When we grew up, we lost the courage to change. We afraid of losing the things we currently have. We contemplate and procrastinate. We wait, until one day we lose our lives.

“to be contented is to be slack”

Gosh. if one day you decide to break away from all the norms and stand out. You become a rock star as you always want to. You started from scratch and you succeeded. Now you think this is our own choice.

Fine. I can't really deny this. But think of the true man show.

How if the whole breakaway is also part of the plot?
Then who is script writer? Some people will point upwards. Ironically they are the people that also believe in free will.

What do I think? The world is playing.

Yes I am being pessimistic. This thoughts of mine are not actually mine as I was also influenced by the things that I read or know. Especially Wesley sci-fi “toys”. Everyone is just a toy. A toy played the media, the society, the politicians, the religion…
“Choice is an illusion. The keyword is ‘control’.” -“The Matrix”

You can choose not to believe in anything so that you are not influenced.

We are all in a game and the world is the playground. Good and bad things are always in dynamic equilibrium. You can affect the crowd and at the same time you are being affected by the crowd. The playground is governed by the laws of thermodynamics.
1. you cant win 2. you cant break even 3. you cant get out of the game (only if you really wanna kill yourself now)

“万法因缘而生”

Remember these rules will save you a lot of unnecessary worries and disturbances. Just live your life as “normal”, continue to make choices but please stop proclaiming that you have free will. (especially you believe in an omnipotent superior being) . Look out “game theory” in maths if you wanna be more in control of the game. The theory is now being exploited in politics, military and business world.

Why have to trouble your mind with all this rubbish? Thinking of this question doesn’t help reduce pollution, poverty or crime. Ermm.

That’s what I consider the meaning of life.
You are born knowing nothing. If you live life like this and until you die you know nothing of why what you have done. A muddled being.
People live passively. We react not act. We respond to environment.

“时势造英雄”

Don’t hope that something drastic will happen tomorrow. Bad things doesn’t go away in a blink of an eye.

Be positive? Then I would say “mind can’t be confined”. No matter how stringent is the mind control, there are always new thoughts that you can’t suppress. See The Island.

Creativity is the greatest gift human possess. We generate new thoughts from all the available information and become our own ideas.
Observe that birds never change the architecture of its nest for 100 years. But human do.

Most human behaviours are learned. We cant really distinguish what is the product of our thoughts and what is learned. No way you can tell. Unless you are constantly reflecting yourself, your mind and your actions. Be mindful of what you are doing and thinking. This is where meditation comes in. if you agree that this question is relevant to the meaning of life, you shall agree that the ability to reflect is crucial. (ad. for learning log)

“think before you leap”.

The end.
20060414 coming back from tesco.

神圣

2006-04-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

将回教先知描绘成恐怖分子肯定是亵渎宗教；那用漫画描述先知的义举呢？我询问了身边的穆斯林朋友，他们同声回答“不行”。为什么？因为经典明文禁止。为什么要禁止？没有理由。再追问下去，就会有人好心提醒：不要冒犯别人的宗教啦。

“神圣不可侵犯”成了宗教里理解教义最大的障碍，也是跨信仰对话中最难以逾越的鸿沟。因为不可侵犯、不能批评、不许议论，所以我们千方百计要捂住别人的嘴巴。我们阻止跨信仰对话的进行，让神圣的继续高不可攀，我们则继续活在自己的象牙塔里，别人继续误解宗教。

神圣，到底是圣人自我加冕，还是人们的心理期许？为什么先知的谆谆教诲千百年后会变成了不可置疑的教条？经人们不断地神圣化，经典慢慢地变成了圭臬，质疑经典即被视作是亵渎宗教。然后开始有人自告奋勇，要扛起“维护神圣”的责任。

维护神圣

曾在某个宗教论坛上看见一些教徒列举圣经里描述“地球是圆的”的章文，力图证明圣经的绝对无误。想到几千年前，众神学家亦曾引经据典来反驳加利略的地圆说，我只觉得好笑。人类可以为了维护神圣而耗尽心思，甚至不惜否定科学。

网上还有另一班人坚信地球诞生于六千年前。他们大肆攻击碳14鉴年法及化石考证。纵有地质、天文、考古、解剖学各方面的证据，他们仍不愿正视事实。他们净举些似是而非的例子，将科学批得一文不值，仿若进化论是世纪大骗局，各科学者串谋起来合力维护着不堪一击的谎言。甚至有博士级的人物撰稿用早已被推翻的论证来数落自己的专业。如此典当自己的学术资格，真令人扼腕。这些人在网上声嘶力竭地摇旗呐喊，在科学界也激不起一丝涟漪。科学家的自信是建立在确凿的证据及严谨的理论分析上。这种没有基础的攻击完全进不了学术殿堂，但他们仍乐此不疲，以此取悦信众。

科教分离

科学只是探索事实的一种方法。没有科学发现是存心要和任何信仰过不去的。即使圣经早就明说地球是圆的，为什么我们要等到科学证明后才肯转态相信？这就是科学认证的可贵之处。宗教自不能取代科学。两者都是描述真相的，各站在不同的角度。为什么要硬要混为一谈呢？前人有一句“上帝的归上帝，凯撒的归凯撒”引伸出政教分离的理念，我现在也要斗胆呼吁“宗教的归宗教，科学的归科学”。

一个人的信仰选择不是因为它的科学前瞻。偶然的科学佐证固然是很好的促销，但当事实和经典相左时未必就是反见证。何必为了那一句话争论不休，以致失去了宗教里更重要的教义？见树不见林，实非智者所为。事实上，宗教本来就不是旨在解释科学的。而且，待科学验证后才跳出来声称“经典早已记载”可说是马后炮；引用又无法详述举证只能算是滥用科学；打着科学的幌子宣扬“真理在这里”然后又不容许别人运用科学方法来检验教义：“上帝是超越逻辑的”，这已经是近乎无赖了。

完美的真理

“宗教是没错的，只是人类诠释错误”，这是最常见的开脱藉口。为力保神圣牌坊，我们自揽过错，掉入完美的陷阱里。我相信人们都想追求真善美。现实的残酷，迫使人们在宗教里追求完美。每个人都希望自己的宗教是完美无缺的真理，但事实是有些教理是不尽完善的。当别人有意无意的探询戳破了完美的泡沫，我们即无法接受。然后我们申斥别人亵渎宗教。然后我们发动圣战，以捍卫宗教英名。

我觉得真理就像数学里的无限大，你可以无限趋近却终不可能抵达。但有谁愿意承认自己的信仰并不完全呢？罗伯特·清崎认为：世界上最难的事就是改变别人的想法。尤其牵涉到信仰时，我们还有更难搞的神圣情意结。如果阿拉伯国家有核武，今天丹麦可能已从欧洲版图上消失。为了神圣。

如果神圣使我们的见解更加盲目，胸襟更加狭隘，更难包容异见，这样的神圣值得我们去维护吗？如果我们承认人类时常错误解读经典，为什么现在我们又那么固执地相信己见？我们须要诋毁科学来成全自以为是的神圣吗？

放下神圣，回归务实

此文非要质问神圣，而是感慨今天的宗教已经变成了信仰，而不是行道。我们热衷于研究教理，以为经典就是真理的全部。我们相信神圣的教义，却忘了将其付诸行动。当我们讲多于做，信却没有行时，我们已经和大道渐行渐远了。Karen Armstrong ，一位美国的宗教学者，在其著作The Great Transformation中就极力倡导我们回归务实：“最重要的不是你相信什么，而是你体现什么”。古代先贤在教导我们时都是先亲身示范才示说教义的，现在我们则是反其道而行。

下一次当我们想要高举神圣时，不妨先躬身行道，因为积极行动的人都知道，真理在生活中，不在书本和网络骂战里；也只有行动，才更能体现宗教的神圣意义。

亵渎科学

2006-03-25T10:36:00.000-08:00

进化论
科学是现代人的宗教，认为人们执信科学，以致科学变成了另一种迷信。他们举例如进化论、气功、星象学等。批判科学固步自封
是科学就要立据
面对种种指责，没有人会说科学被亵渎了。
瑜伽、芳香疗法、针灸，那些能够
卫斯理《蛊惑》
过程与结果
急功近利，不求甚解；还是务实？

种族平等

2006-03-12T22:44:00.000-08:00

独走在异乡的大街上，我有时会碰上青少年异样的嗤笑；
或醉汉朝着我挥动拳头，作状要打人；
或呼啸而过的谩骂声。

面对这一切，我仍然坦然无畏。因为我知道这里还有法治，法律保障
反歧视法令

在马来西亚，你看不到明显的歧视，但却有制度化的欺压。
这里没有法律保障你，所以你申诉无门。

空谈种族和谐
不如落实种族平等来得实际

我身在国外，在jpa的聚会，我为我许多饮恨的朋友叫屈。
他们循循诱导我们要回国建设国家，那边厢却告诉MARA保送生“争取机会发展” 。

或者是在国会，盛怒之时撕破脸皮，大嚷“不喜欢就滚出马来西亚”。

伪善
他们在阳光下大谈种族团结，在阳光照不到的地方把种族和谐打破。
我参加过的BTN将国家的种族导向政策表露无遗。整个BTN可说是个精心策划的种族议程，旨在有系统地灌输种族猜疑予国家公务员。

驾驶种族主义的快车，迟早会“撞车”。 crash.

BTN

2006-03-12T11:43:00.000-08:00

我在2005年参与BTN，其内容之煽情令同组的马来人也看不过眼。尤其是在讲述513事件的起因，讲师将此悲剧归咎于华裔在大选狂胜后到马来人区域耀武扬威，“没有体谅马来人的感受”，引起了他们的愤慨... 他语意中没有任何谴责暴力的意思，反而好像是在赞同他们的行为。课程中所有的社会数据皆以种族分类，讲师分析完那些资料后，最后的结论就是：马来人尚处于劣势，所以扶弱政策是合理且应该被加强的。

还有一次，一位前军人来当讲师。当时的讲题是关于国防。他从马六甲沦陷讲到当时2005年的海峡危机，仿佛国防全都是马来人的贡献似的。最后他还进一步反问：“有多少华人肯当兵？每个进来都是想要捞军衔。。”遗憾的是不是所有在场的人都知道真正的历史。尤其是来自寄宿学校的学生，他们的想法和课程内容如出一辙，他们完全没有异议。课程中还有明显的反美、反犹太情绪。在“本国的威胁”一文中，新加坡名列前茅，他们的成就被视为是“有美国作后台”。整个东南亚（除了印尼）被描绘成“敌人环伺”，所以我们（三大种族）必须团结云云。果真搞笑。

以上取自我投给独立新闻在线的举报。
不足之处请其他同学添加。

动物实验

2006-03-05T23:21:00.000-08:00

1960年代初，科学家为了证明吸烟之患，进行了一项动物实验。五只猎兔狗并肩拴在木笼里，头上套着面罩，无助地吸着放在他们口里的香烟。当一根烟燃尽，一旁的机械装置会自动点燃另一根烟。这些狗就这样当了数星期的无间烟民。

此照片可谓是反对动物实验的经典作。这其实不是人类第一项进行的动物试验。早在18世纪动物已成为科学家的试验品，但1859年达尔文的生物进化论才算是真正提供了利用动物研究人类生理学的论据基础。自此，动物被大量用在各类科学实验上。

上个星期我就真正见识到了动物实验血淋淋的一面。为了研究消化液的分泌，科学家将狗的胃内壁翻出缝制成一个胃包，然后外接试管以承接流出的胃液。过程中那些不堪的详情自然就不便叙述了，但看过此录像带的人都纷纷对动物实验产生了抗拒的情绪。无独有偶，同一时间，英国的动物权力份子正针对牛津大学拟兴建的医药研究中心表示抗议。其中一个组织动物解放前线（ALF）的激进手段引起了媒体的高度关注。早前，此单位袭击了研究人员的住家并坦言策谋赫福学院船仓纵火事件。随后牛津大学成功申请到庭令，禁止ALF在网络上流传40位学术人员住址。现在他们誓言要“对付任何和牛津大学有牵连的人”。

先莫论这些人是否是在践踏人权来维护动物权，因为他们的威吓已造成了牛津师生的大力反弹。其中一名学生致函媒体表示“他们其实应该笼络学生的支持，利用学生的发言权……但现在？投票结果显示有近九成的学生支持动物实验。”这班学生发起了“亲试验”（Pro-Test）组织并开始举行示威，企图和反试验份子分庭抗礼。

我旁观两派斗争，暂不表态。令我更感兴趣的是反动物实验者看待动物的心态。他们高举动物权的旗帜，认为动物和人类是平权的。动物权力本身是个极具争议的议题。回溯西方哲学史，人们一度认为动物没有灵魂（奥古斯丁Augustine），没有理性（汤马斯·霍比斯 (Thomas Hobbes)、康德等）。从否定动物的主体意识到今天为动物请命的地步，间中到底是一个怎样的转变？

十七世纪始，资本主义的蓬勃发展使人们对“权利”这个概念有了新的认识。宠物开始成为英国中产阶级生活方式的一部分。人与宠物的关系使人们意识到人和动物的相互依赖的感情关系，间接地挑战了人主宰动物的概念。宠物被接纳为家庭成员之一，它们都有自己的名字。名字的出现赋予动物独立的身份，动物作为有主体的存在的观念为后来的动物福利运动奠定了广泛的心理基础。

在这个时期，动物福利运动逐渐涌现。民主，个人权利以及社会的相当富裕使广大的中产阶级开始参与这个运动。这个运动浩浩荡荡，结果导致了立法改革，以及英语世界中动物保护权利组织的诞生。维多丽亚时代标志着反对用活的动物进行实验运动的启蒙。运动起始于一个法国的科学家的猫狗活体解剖实验，这些猫狗都没有麻醉。他的做法引起公众的愤怒不满，成千上万的人开始抗议这种毫不人道的实验行为。英国于1876年制定了残酷对待动物法案，规定所有要进行动物实验的研究者都必须向政府提出申请。

反对用活动物进行实验在英国声势曾经极为巨大，但是与此同时，医药科学研究在医学实验的基础上急遽发展，为人类的健康带来很多从未预料的结果。医学实验在十九世纪最后十年赢得了愈来愈大的支持，反对动物实验运动在世纪末逐渐落寞了。进入二十世纪，整个世界都进一步迷狂科学和技术，加上二战的爆发，人类已无暇顾及对其他生物的保护。

1975年，比德·森格（Peter Singer）的《动物解放》(Animal Liberation)一书，带来了动物认知论里最重要的转折点。森格以强有力哲学推论和容易阅读的行文，分析了动物的道德位置问题。这本书激励了很多人成为动物权利的活动分子。

纵观动物权利运动背后深刻的哲学意义，但遗憾的是许多活跃分子仍停留在情感上的不忍。我走访的几位支持者会倾向于想到和人类关系密切的动物，显然“爱护宠物”的思想在运动中有很大的影响。但我们仔细想想，远在森林里的野兽家园被摧毁；近在农场里的牺口在拥挤的笼子里垂死待毙，这些动物的权利不也都应该受到保护吗？若这些激进份子只是选择性地怜悯“可爱的动物”的话，我只能说这运动仍然不够全面，对其他动物而言则是另一种歧视。

据联合国数据，相对于1700万为科学牺牲的动物，每年就有400亿只鸡为了满足人类的口腹之欲死于屠刀下。论质论量，这些号称“搭救动物”的团体都有点见树不见林。我并非要为动物实验平反，仅是觉得动物权利运动有必要扩大对动物的认知。与其把精力浪费在攻击他人，倒不如认清事实，实验室外还有更多等待被拯救的生灵。动物和人的关系是个相当复杂的课题，不是单纯的停止杀戮可以解决的问题，还有动物服务人类的争论、人类对自然环境的使用权等。搞运动的人应该用书本武装自己，而不是拳头和火把。

参考文献：动物与人：西方动物权利思想的来龙与去脉
http://www.chinavegan.com/2005/welcome_to_china_vegan@20051031110617.htm

先进国

2006-02-16T01:46:00.000-08:00

人人都说欧美国家生活水平高。我倒不这么认为。在爱尔兰生活了近半年，我只知道这里物价最高：柴米贵，食物贵，书本贵，娱乐消闲也贵，技工服务费更贵。常此克勤克俭，我反而觉得我的生活水平大降。往日穿着短裤裆在嘛嘛档喝茶的情景不再，这里晚上唯一的消遣就是在酒吧喝酒，但每次结账时我都会心痛万分。唉，要活得比较得体一点真不便宜呀！

你或许会说：赚马币花欧元当然吃力啦。我认同。事实上，身边早已有同学及学长在密谋要毁约，以求逗留在这里当医生，名正言顺地挣欧元。可是我们亲爱的政府已投资了数千万在我们的身上，他们当然不会容许这样的事情发生。所以他们会时不时和我们见面，耳提面命我们的责任以及国家的希望，千方百计要确保我们乖乖回国。

这些官员会动之以情，告诉我们马来西亚一个小国欲成为先进国的大志。我国目前的医生产量为每年1500个，医生与人口比例为1：1400。国家还须要加速催谷医生，以期在2015年之际率先达致先进国1：600的比例（卫生部宏愿）。国家的前景就寄托在我们身上。他们也会诉之以利，承诺国家从不会亏待专才（只是海峡对岸的优惠更吸引人而已）。最重要的是，在大马行医我们能够轻易获得许多宝贵的临床经验。

他解释道：在这些先进国病人权利高涨，他们明事理、讲法律，动辄诉诸讼状，让医生人人自危。医生所做的每一项程序都必须巨细靡遗地记录下来，并随时准备证明其合理性（英国医学委员会言）。在大马哪有这等事？病人对医生唯命是从，很少有病人敢（或有能力）过问医生的决定或参与医疗决策。他进一步举例说：马大的医学生早在四年级就能（必须）在手术室操刀，反观在先进国的我们，一天还未毕业都没有资格踏入手术室。总得来说，在大马行医有更大的自主权，“比较安全”。

我忽然感到很失望。我们的国家热衷于追求一流国家的建设，想法却仍停留在三流国家的思维。事实上，医疗失误可能是大马第二大杀手（见槟消协《医疗失误》手册）。如果我们空有1：600的傲人比例，但国人的生命继续受轻贱，人权没有提升，这样的先进国意义何在？

我检视我处身的这个国家，开始庆幸我的生命是受到保障的。人民知晓他们的权利；法律维护人民的知情权。他们有特别委员会专处理医疗失误的投诉。在爱尔兰病人有全权翻阅自己的病历表。超市里的食品标签详细列明所有成分（而不是“已批准色素”）、过敏原，连有机食物都是有稽可考的。有些制造商甚至可以承诺“不满包换”。他们的品质管理之严格，早在栽种施肥的那一刻就已经开始，而不是要等到其他国家揭发某罐头含有致癌物质才姗姗禁售。水喉水可以直接饮用。校园境内的发展计划也会评估对学生的影响及听取学生的意见。由此足见他们愿意认真对待生命，维护人民的权利。

在这之前我一直很困惑为什么这里的人都非常有法治精神。他们宁可深夜在街头排队等候计程车也不愿酒后驾驶，也不会滥用“不满包换”政策。我终于理解到如果法律尊重人民，人民也当会遵守法律。生活水平不仅是购买力的高低，更重要的是生命的价值。这就是我对一个先进国最恰当的注脚。

免费

2006-02-09T09:40:00.000-08:00

如果世界上所有的东西都是免费的，这就是天堂吗？

消费主义 --有问题吗？

2006-02-03T02:12:00.000-08:00

我从来没办法想象礼节日人们疯狂抢购的情景，直到我在英国亲眼目睹此盛况。清晨四点，天还未亮，商店门口已排满了人。许多人都在圣诞前夕瞄准要买的项目，就待礼节日大门一开第一时间冲进去抢购。那种炽热逼人的购物狂潮，是马来西亚任何一间商场的大减价都无法比拟的。当然啦，一年一度的倾销，加上年关将至，此时不买更待何时？

我在圣诞前夕的一个基督教聚会还听到教友感叹现今圣诞节的沦落及商品化，他们还谆谆提点我不要忘了圣诞的原意。言犹在耳，两天后我就看到了如此猖獗的消费主义。整座城市仿佛就是一个超级商场，每间商店都是人头躜动，每个行人走在路上都在谈论这下一个抢购站点。他们脸上那种迫不及待的兴奋神色，好像今天倾家荡产也要满足自己的购买欲。这巨大的反差让我一时间难以调适过来。

方抵达我伦敦朋友的家，就有幸见识到了他屋友这几天丰硕的战利品。衣服皮袄鞋子的，件件都是国际名牌，花了上百镑（约马币800）可他仍是面不改色。连信用卡都暴额了也没有停手的意思，继续和我们谈论几时再去购物。我才来留学不过3个月，心理上仍无法摆脱用马币衡量一切的习惯，消费也显得拘谨小器。现在看到他们的花钱方式，我真是自叹不如。

值得一提的是他们都是所谓的公共服务局（JPA）保送生。想到这些人正在挪用国家公帑来购买衣服追求时尚，我不住莞尔。如果国内千千万万个纳税人知晓这的话，心里不知会作何感想……我们有时会揶揄他那屋友花钱如流水、崇尚名牌，他会立即反诘：你们的钱不花在衣服上，却一样花在书本、电影上，那不也是
消费吗？想想似乎有理，我们是否只是五十步笑百步呢？

我又想起我另一个朋友，他花钱才是真的“洗脚不抹脚”（粤）。如果我上述的朋友是花钱没有节制，那我这位朋友就是花钱没有目的。他的金钱观是：让每一分钱发挥它的价值。所以他的钱从未闲过，吃饭喝酒零花享受，钱也就稀里哗啦溜走了。反正月底钱用罄时JPA照样会把钱汇进来。

我不是JPA，自然无法非议这些人花钱的方式（即使是JPA也无权干预我们花钱的方式），不过他自有一套理论：如果人人都不花钱的话，经济就会停滞不前，这对国家更不利……钱就应该拿来花才能提高自己的生活素质……存那么多钱干什么？我无言以对，我不是经济本科生，实在无法回答这些问题……

消费主义当道，难道节俭是美德的时代已经过去了？我开始思虑，到底平日省吃俭用是为了什么，是不是可以花多点钱犒赏自己。直到我在网络上碰见有人发出和我相同的疑问。链接1 文中清楚点出：每个人都有不同的追求及偏好，不花钱在时装上的人可能会把钱花在电脑或旅游上，储蓄的人可能只是为了日后更大的消费，谁也不能指摘谁比较奢华。（我那位朋友应该会窃喜，以后花钱就可以理直气壮了）。而适度的消费的确可以为经济带来正面的影响，但如果奢华消费超过了资源供给能力就是浪费。更重要的是，社会上有更大部分的人是经济上无法负担得起高档消费，因此在刺激经济上应该着重于调整国民收入分配格局，增加全民的消费能力，而非倡导少数人的奢侈消费或名牌主义。换句话说，微观上追求时尚纯粹是个人选择，没有什么好批判的；但宏观来说，名牌消费的趋势却是不利于国家整体经济发展的。

追求时尚有错吗？就看你站在什么立场咯。

1中国青年报：奢侈品消费时代真的已经到来了吗
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/40551/3156529.html