(Translated from here.)
I often had the question of why Chinese fate prediction stopped at the level of hours but not extending its coverage to minute or seconds? Why the logic which the fate prediction using birth time base on doesn't apply to minute or seconds? What scared status does these unit of time held? Since one criteria of validity of fate prediction would be differentiating different fate pattern of people born at different time, but it is simply illogical when that implies those who born at the same hour and same place share the same fate.
First that is due to the technological limit of time measurement at that time. Second is because Chinese had the idea of five elements from the year of birth, month of birth, day of birth and (double) hours which determine the destinate of individual which give us eight units. In according to 5 elements theory, one's life would be in perfect balance if an individual is birth at a time which 5 elements is distributed evenly among his/her year/month/day/hour. Since 8 is indivisible by 5, therefore the philosophical implication is that nobody born with a perfect life. Just like Freud assert that the ongoing conflict between ego, superego and id is what drive the personality development; Chinese also assume that there are inherent imbalance within each of us, and it is the imbalance/imperfectness drive the development of each person. Imbalance is what give birth to human psyche and society!
2009年7月11日 星期六
The problem in the theoretical framework of Five-Elements hypothsis in Chinese culture
(Translated from here.)
1. How do we define an object as belonging to Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood? What attributes do we take from an object as a defining attribute? For instance, computer is made of metal but require electricity to operate(Fire), yet the software and programs it run is base on Mathematics(wood) while it also posses structure(soil) and in state of constant change(water). Do we use an object's function, structure, mode of operation, what it made of or what it require to operate to differentiate the category it belong to in Five-Elements hypothesis? Also, does human body belong to Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood? How about dynasty, do we simply define by its name?
2. The quantitative issue. What is heavy and what is weak and how do we differentiate it? Heavy Fire could vaporize a small pond of water, Great amount of soil could put out a small fire, small amount of soil can't protect from great flood, small amount of soil can actually aid Great Fire because it prevent it from exhaust itself too readily, small metal knife can't chopped down a large tree... etc.
3. Too big a room for interpretation. Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood all are related to each other one way or another, there never exists two elements that bear no relationship. For instance, Metal bear
Water while melted by Fire, Metal come from Soil as mineral, Metal could chop Wood. What happen then when Metal encounter Wood? How do we know which is the most accurate interpretation?
4. Some attributes of Five elements appear to be self-contradictory. For instance, Water is known to be conservative, flow downward as stabilizer in cement, while Water is also associated with fluid and flexibility, so which is which? Fire is known to be expanding, growing upward, creative; yet it is also associated with stubbornness and arrogance. again which is which?
Unless all those questions are sorted out, otherwise we can't expect Five-Elements hypothesis to offer much value to humanity or Chinese culture.
1. How do we define an object as belonging to Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood? What attributes do we take from an object as a defining attribute? For instance, computer is made of metal but require electricity to operate(Fire), yet the software and programs it run is base on Mathematics(wood) while it also posses structure(soil) and in state of constant change(water). Do we use an object's function, structure, mode of operation, what it made of or what it require to operate to differentiate the category it belong to in Five-Elements hypothesis? Also, does human body belong to Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood? How about dynasty, do we simply define by its name?
2. The quantitative issue. What is heavy and what is weak and how do we differentiate it? Heavy Fire could vaporize a small pond of water, Great amount of soil could put out a small fire, small amount of soil can't protect from great flood, small amount of soil can actually aid Great Fire because it prevent it from exhaust itself too readily, small metal knife can't chopped down a large tree... etc.
3. Too big a room for interpretation. Metal, Water,Soil, Fire or Wood all are related to each other one way or another, there never exists two elements that bear no relationship. For instance, Metal bear
Water while melted by Fire, Metal come from Soil as mineral, Metal could chop Wood. What happen then when Metal encounter Wood? How do we know which is the most accurate interpretation?
4. Some attributes of Five elements appear to be self-contradictory. For instance, Water is known to be conservative, flow downward as stabilizer in cement, while Water is also associated with fluid and flexibility, so which is which? Fire is known to be expanding, growing upward, creative; yet it is also associated with stubbornness and arrogance. again which is which?
Unless all those questions are sorted out, otherwise we can't expect Five-Elements hypothesis to offer much value to humanity or Chinese culture.
Hong Kong no longer demand Universal Suffrage
(This is my translation of this Chinese article.)
Since communist China is forever had reservation about adopting the 'Western style' of democracy in Hong Kong, I thereby propose a way to escape from this entrapment: In exchange of we not supporting universal election of Chief Executive, we demand universal election in at least 2/3 of the seats in Legislative Council and cancellation of all appointed seat in District Board while expanding its power to the level of former Urban Council(市政局) by 2012. We are too used to the idea of appointed governor, be it from London or Beijing; and since any policy can't be adopted with the consent of Legislative Council which the majority is universally elected, then there is practically self-autonomy of HKSAR.
Since communist China is forever had reservation about adopting the 'Western style' of democracy in Hong Kong, I thereby propose a way to escape from this entrapment: In exchange of we not supporting universal election of Chief Executive, we demand universal election in at least 2/3 of the seats in Legislative Council and cancellation of all appointed seat in District Board while expanding its power to the level of former Urban Council(市政局) by 2012. We are too used to the idea of appointed governor, be it from London or Beijing; and since any policy can't be adopted with the consent of Legislative Council which the majority is universally elected, then there is practically self-autonomy of HKSAR.
2008年9月17日 星期三
物質主義的心理現實
香港式的物質至上主義其實在心理學上已經被證偽,因為不少研究指出,人的快樂並不是和物質的豐富程度直接掛釣,基本上,愈有錢愈快樂的說法並無具體事實證 明。而以整個國家為標準的研究,也反映不出物質的豐富程度和主觀的快樂感覺有什麼直接關係,其中最箸名的例子是亞洲窮國不丹,快樂指數是在世界上首屈一 指。其實,想一想,如果人的快樂並不是和物質的豐富程度直接掛釣,則我們可以推論出經濟繁榮國家的人民一定生活得比經濟落後國家的人民快樂(因此美國是世 界最快樂的國家!),而這個國家經濟繁榮的時侯,人民一定生活得比經濟蕭條時快樂。拿香港做例子,因為每年都有經濟增長,因此97年以後的香港一定比97 年前的香港快樂,但這顯然不是事實。
香港式的物質主義思想的最大問題是把心的運作物質化,一切以可以比較的數字來衡量,而又把心理運作過分簡化,心理運作之所以稱為心理,明顯因為它的運作是 多小獨立於物質層面之外。心理不是簡簡單單的運算及程式條件式: a:快樂, -a:不快樂,如果人的心理是如此簡單的話則人類亦不可以成為萬物之靈。我想問題是經濟學的思想未成熟,過份把人的行為簡化,而某些香港人,不想動 腦思考,因此便用一些最簡單的方式來運算來代替思考。
快樂的本質是什麼?我這裏只能猜想和腦神經的運作模式有關,但是這個運作模式亦是可以變的!
香港式的物質主義思想的最大問題是把心的運作物質化,一切以可以比較的數字來衡量,而又把心理運作過分簡化,心理運作之所以稱為心理,明顯因為它的運作是 多小獨立於物質層面之外。心理不是簡簡單單的運算及程式條件式: a:快樂, -a:不快樂,如果人的心理是如此簡單的話則人類亦不可以成為萬物之靈。我想問題是經濟學的思想未成熟,過份把人的行為簡化,而某些香港人,不想動 腦思考,因此便用一些最簡單的方式來運算來代替思考。
快樂的本質是什麼?我這裏只能猜想和腦神經的運作模式有關,但是這個運作模式亦是可以變的!
2008年9月11日 星期四
Is evolutionary theory a better ‘explanation’?
There is a growing debate between the Creationism and Evolutionary Theory in USA as raised by Christian Right, and, of course it argue that the former is a better explanation than later, while scientist argue otherwise. Although this is the topic of my thesis paper when I was studying in a Christian College, I am not going to dwell into this issue here. There are good discussion of it on the Internet. My point here is to play Devil’s Advocate on the common sense that evolutionary theory in Biology is a better explanation.
What people often missed in the debate is what is qualified as an explanation? I would like argue for the point that although Creationism is not consider as an explanation since it replace one unknown with another, there are some issues associated with calling evolutionary theory an ‘explanation’.
Evolutionary Theory belong to realm of science, what essentially it gave is the how of the process of evolution but not the why. Some has considered that science is not suited to answer this set of questions. Although once we know the process, we can extend the theory to test its external validity(see if it can made accurate prediction), or even applied that to application in daily life (genetics); but can process be consider as ‘explanation’? Does knowing how we breath ‘explain’ what is breathing? Does knowing how our mind works means we can understand what our mind is? What I believe is that evolutionary theory is only the first layer of onion, the process of peeling the onion could go on indefinitely as we want it. Suppose we get the Physicist’s holy grail: ‘Theory of Everything’. Does it means not that we can further ask: Why is Theory of Everything is one way but not the another? Can we dig further into TOE and understand how is what it is? Therefore I could sympathy with religionists stop the investigation in the very first step, they may just know that they can’t finish peeling the onion, and they want to save time to do something else.
Evolutionary theory, in my opinion, by its nature is not really about explanation but predicting what is going to happen next, because what it said essentially is: Now is because of what is happened in the past led to this now but not the other now, follow logics from Mathematics and Statistics; plus some accidents.’ Thus Evolutionary theory, like history, suffer the same problem as it belong to ‘retrospective’ science. We can’t verify how history develop since we can’t test one hypothesis against another in the sense that the past is gone. How could we know what happen if ‘Martin Luther King is not murdered?’, or ‘Al Gore instead of George W. Bush is elected in 2004′? Similarly, although we can do experiment to test the hypothesis in the laboratory, but we can never be sure that the parameters in the laboratory is identical to the parameters of the part of evolutionary history we inquire. Therefore, the internal validity of experiments against hypothesis in evolutionary theory can never be completely ascertained (unless we have a time traveling machine to collect the sample from the past). And we also must not ignore that evolutionary process is full of accidents, since we don’t know exactly how those accidents happen, therefore the ‘explanation’ afforded by evolution theory can never be completed. It is not the fault of this theory itself, but because of the nature of object we inquire about. But it never rules out that there maybe better methods and framework (other than the scientific method) to understand the phenomenas of what evolution theory talked about.
Thus my conclusion is ‘Evolutionary theory’ is the better one at least because it could be argue against, and we can use this framework to build more powerful explanation; as compare to Creationism which can never be objectively falsify. Notice there is a philosophical bias toward intellectualism: Those which allow we to think and argue must be better than those doesn’t allow to think. Why must this be right?
What people often missed in the debate is what is qualified as an explanation? I would like argue for the point that although Creationism is not consider as an explanation since it replace one unknown with another, there are some issues associated with calling evolutionary theory an ‘explanation’.
Evolutionary Theory belong to realm of science, what essentially it gave is the how of the process of evolution but not the why. Some has considered that science is not suited to answer this set of questions. Although once we know the process, we can extend the theory to test its external validity(see if it can made accurate prediction), or even applied that to application in daily life (genetics); but can process be consider as ‘explanation’? Does knowing how we breath ‘explain’ what is breathing? Does knowing how our mind works means we can understand what our mind is? What I believe is that evolutionary theory is only the first layer of onion, the process of peeling the onion could go on indefinitely as we want it. Suppose we get the Physicist’s holy grail: ‘Theory of Everything’. Does it means not that we can further ask: Why is Theory of Everything is one way but not the another? Can we dig further into TOE and understand how is what it is? Therefore I could sympathy with religionists stop the investigation in the very first step, they may just know that they can’t finish peeling the onion, and they want to save time to do something else.
Evolutionary theory, in my opinion, by its nature is not really about explanation but predicting what is going to happen next, because what it said essentially is: Now is because of what is happened in the past led to this now but not the other now, follow logics from Mathematics and Statistics; plus some accidents.’ Thus Evolutionary theory, like history, suffer the same problem as it belong to ‘retrospective’ science. We can’t verify how history develop since we can’t test one hypothesis against another in the sense that the past is gone. How could we know what happen if ‘Martin Luther King is not murdered?’, or ‘Al Gore instead of George W. Bush is elected in 2004′? Similarly, although we can do experiment to test the hypothesis in the laboratory, but we can never be sure that the parameters in the laboratory is identical to the parameters of the part of evolutionary history we inquire. Therefore, the internal validity of experiments against hypothesis in evolutionary theory can never be completely ascertained (unless we have a time traveling machine to collect the sample from the past). And we also must not ignore that evolutionary process is full of accidents, since we don’t know exactly how those accidents happen, therefore the ‘explanation’ afforded by evolution theory can never be completed. It is not the fault of this theory itself, but because of the nature of object we inquire about. But it never rules out that there maybe better methods and framework (other than the scientific method) to understand the phenomenas of what evolution theory talked about.
Thus my conclusion is ‘Evolutionary theory’ is the better one at least because it could be argue against, and we can use this framework to build more powerful explanation; as compare to Creationism which can never be objectively falsify. Notice there is a philosophical bias toward intellectualism: Those which allow we to think and argue must be better than those doesn’t allow to think. Why must this be right?
What is the internal validity of Philosophy?
I remember one line of the philosophical inquiry into the perception process like this: By the logic that a perceiver must be separated from perceived, therefore there must exist ‘little man’ who observe what we observe in our brain. But then how does these ‘little man’ know what they observing? Then it require a little man inside another little man’s brain. We can easily see how this lead to an absurd conclusion. So the conclusion is either perception is logically impossible or there is something wrong with this picture, likely its hidden assumption.
I prefer the later since there are obvious logically error with the picture: Why must perceiver must be separated from perceived? Why can’t perceiver also perceiving itself? Where does this notion that perceiver must be separated from perceived, which sounds so natural to us, come from?
I am not interested to dwell into the actual psychological history of this idea. I only think it is very likely it is coming from the logical rule of our mind rather than fact of physical reality. It has everything to do with the habit of our mind to separate the perceiver and separated in our Cognitive process. Thus it is natural to infer from this logic that there must be some mechanism to observe what is observed, since it is assumed that the observer itself has no explanatory power. Observation is obviously different from the process of understanding, therefore we habitually separate them into two categories. It thus follows that there must be two set of brain cells devoted to two different neurological process, since in our mind it is ‘natural’ to place one category in one slot.(Against the Pigeonhole Principle in Discrete Mathematics.) When one set of brain cell is responsible for observation, then another set of brain cell must be responsible for analyze it. How logical is it to infer the process in Physical space from the bias inherent in our Cognitive Process in Psychological Space?
This, I see it as the example of the issue in Philosophical reasoning. If only we can obliterate all assumption then we can arrive at the best understanding of the world, otherwise we may think we are analyzing the world objectively while we are subtly biased in one way or another.
I prefer the later since there are obvious logically error with the picture: Why must perceiver must be separated from perceived? Why can’t perceiver also perceiving itself? Where does this notion that perceiver must be separated from perceived, which sounds so natural to us, come from?
I am not interested to dwell into the actual psychological history of this idea. I only think it is very likely it is coming from the logical rule of our mind rather than fact of physical reality. It has everything to do with the habit of our mind to separate the perceiver and separated in our Cognitive process. Thus it is natural to infer from this logic that there must be some mechanism to observe what is observed, since it is assumed that the observer itself has no explanatory power. Observation is obviously different from the process of understanding, therefore we habitually separate them into two categories. It thus follows that there must be two set of brain cells devoted to two different neurological process, since in our mind it is ‘natural’ to place one category in one slot.(Against the Pigeonhole Principle in Discrete Mathematics.) When one set of brain cell is responsible for observation, then another set of brain cell must be responsible for analyze it. How logical is it to infer the process in Physical space from the bias inherent in our Cognitive Process in Psychological Space?
This, I see it as the example of the issue in Philosophical reasoning. If only we can obliterate all assumption then we can arrive at the best understanding of the world, otherwise we may think we are analyzing the world objectively while we are subtly biased in one way or another.
2008年9月6日 星期六
世俗主義在香港的兩個面向
在香港,近9成的人都可以籠統被歸類為世俗主義者,如何分類:很簡單,你問他/她的宗教信仰,他/她會回答你說:沒有特定的信仰。這和在西方常見的有神論 /無神論分野不同,在世俗主義文化生活已久的香港人,習慣了不對「宗教內」的事情表達意見;雖然有信仰的人卻不會怎分什麼是宗教內和宗教外的問題,宗教是一種生活方式,最多可以做的是不強迫他人相信你的宗教,但不可能事事以宗教/世俗來分野。
而令宗教在香港產生巨大的吸引力的,是香港奉行世俗主義者中另一些我不太認同的假設,它和平庸主義、功利主義和犬儒主義似乎是掛了勾。某些世俗主義者不以為世上有不犯錯的聖人,沒有在道德上是完美的,因此每個人便不用追求道德上的無暇,既然道德上無聖人,行為/思想亦不用完美,進而嘲笑這些在生活上/思想上追求完美的人,成為犬儒主義者,亦因此人人都是差不多的。因為他們以為世上沒有神聖的東西,或是終極的價值,因此所有人只應追求所有人都看得到,及所有人都以為是值得追求的,既然無聖人,自然亦不會有智者,因此我的想法不可能比其他人更真,我不可能比其他人聰明,變成平庸主義者。以此來論,理想主義本身是荒謬的,因為世上根本沒有理想的事業、沒有理想的愛情、更不會有理想的世界,把一生都放在不存在的東西上面,會不會是和宗教者追逐天堂一樣無聊和無意義呢?因此世俗主義者只追求看得的,凡是理想都是太遙遠了,因此香港成了一個失去理想的憧憬、對未來的熱情的社會,因為再多十年、廿年、百年,世界不會有本質的分別!
(這當然和香港政治現況有關,另文再談。)
而令宗教在香港產生巨大的吸引力的,是香港奉行世俗主義者中另一些我不太認同的假設,它和平庸主義、功利主義和犬儒主義似乎是掛了勾。某些世俗主義者不以為世上有不犯錯的聖人,沒有在道德上是完美的,因此每個人便不用追求道德上的無暇,既然道德上無聖人,行為/思想亦不用完美,進而嘲笑這些在生活上/思想上追求完美的人,成為犬儒主義者,亦因此人人都是差不多的。因為他們以為世上沒有神聖的東西,或是終極的價值,因此所有人只應追求所有人都看得到,及所有人都以為是值得追求的,既然無聖人,自然亦不會有智者,因此我的想法不可能比其他人更真,我不可能比其他人聰明,變成平庸主義者。以此來論,理想主義本身是荒謬的,因為世上根本沒有理想的事業、沒有理想的愛情、更不會有理想的世界,把一生都放在不存在的東西上面,會不會是和宗教者追逐天堂一樣無聊和無意義呢?因此世俗主義者只追求看得的,凡是理想都是太遙遠了,因此香港成了一個失去理想的憧憬、對未來的熱情的社會,因為再多十年、廿年、百年,世界不會有本質的分別!
(這當然和香港政治現況有關,另文再談。)
2008年8月20日 星期三
Millennium、God.com和世界未日
我記得在美國星期五的Fox電視晚有個劇集叫「Millenniums」,當然是當正千禧年為世界未日,有一集說一班印第安人要捉主角去喝毒 藥來看他們的種族前途,因為他們的祭司只看到一半,一定是某位外族人才可以預言到下一半,主角看到了一個影像:一班水牛在街上四處走,後來果然成為事實, 但是大祭司卻拒絕承認預言真的應驗了,這等於是他族/他自己的未日。主角如此嘲笑大祭司:「The prophecy are fulfilled, you are just too blind to see it.」如此真有意思,是不是所有宗教的教徒都會如此?最近常常在網上聽到中共未日的說法,心想這就算是真的,中共國的人的反應會不會和大祭司一樣?
這又令我想起有一套港產片叫「未日風暴」(God.com),結尾是十分有意思,亦有點哲學的味道。什麼日子是世界未日,這就是每一天: 自911以後,世上沒有一處是安全的地方,而油價高企、通脹以致地區戰爭和政治不穩,專制政治(中國、俄羅斯)重新抬頭,民主制度日漸被跨國企業如Microsoft、Nike、Coca-cola腐蝕,壟斷及反競爭行為不絕:你用的電腦就是(我不用Microsoft及它的所有軟件的)、ISP和政府合作監聽通訊、媒體日漸失去中立性 (尤其 是美國),不斷散播右傾的「消費自由就是自由的全部、經濟是人類生活的一切」,約可稱為「重商主義」的思想,然後是溫室效應、超級細菌、生態系統崩潰,還 有人為的以引發天災為武器等。世界每天都是在面對這些問題,世界未日真的是如此難以想像,真的是如此不合邏緝?真的是不合乎常理?還是不少人所謂現實的人 不願面對現實,尤其是既得利益者?
這又令我想起有一套港產片叫「未日風暴」(God.com),結尾是十分有意思,亦有點哲學的味道。什麼日子是世界未日,這就是每一天: 自911以後,世上沒有一處是安全的地方,而油價高企、通脹以致地區戰爭和政治不穩,專制政治(中國、俄羅斯)重新抬頭,民主制度日漸被跨國企業如Microsoft、Nike、Coca-cola腐蝕,壟斷及反競爭行為不絕:你用的電腦就是(我不用Microsoft及它的所有軟件的)、ISP和政府合作監聽通訊、媒體日漸失去中立性 (尤其 是美國),不斷散播右傾的「消費自由就是自由的全部、經濟是人類生活的一切」,約可稱為「重商主義」的思想,然後是溫室效應、超級細菌、生態系統崩潰,還 有人為的以引發天災為武器等。世界每天都是在面對這些問題,世界未日真的是如此難以想像,真的是如此不合邏緝?真的是不合乎常理?還是不少人所謂現實的人 不願面對現實,尤其是既得利益者?
資本主義和能量守恆的共通點
因為人以量化/表面去看大自然事物及自己,因此出現了以錯誤的基礎:「資源有限,慾望無限」的資本主義,加劇了「人待人如狼」的劣根性,人性的淪落;同理,因為人以量化/表面去看大自然事物及自己,因此出現了以錯誤的物理學基礎:「能量守恆定律」卻慾望無限。是思路的錯誤做成了人類的困境,人基礎的問題是心理問題,是思想問題。新紀元運動,正是以生命/思想的無限來挑戰這些思想框框,如果有人以為在現行的科學思維框框可以解決世界能源的問題,是天真到極點。
2008年8月6日 星期三
甜與酸、甜與鹹及其他
甜與酸不是在化學上對立,只是在人的神經系統演化中,即人的舌頭中,甜與酸的感覺是互相排斥。甜與酸唯一算得上在某種意義上相反的地方,是的甜的東西放得 太耐變酸,而人體需要甜的東西作為能量來源,但酸的東西因為是欠缺能量或者是已經變壞,甚至對人的健康有害,因此人天生有一種喜甜厭酸的趨向。因為人的神 經系統的設計給予甜與酸一種相反的具體表現在,如果吃完甜的東西不去喝位水清清口腔(清洗味覺神經的記憶),再去吃比較不甜的東西,人就會覺得酸。
甜與鹹的相反的意義則只表現在中國人吃東西的習慣上,因為中國人通常是吃完鹹再吃鹹,又或者一餐只吃甜或鹹,較少會甜與鹹夾雜在菜式中。甜與鹹對於人的神經系統來說,只代表兩種不同的食物,本質上並無相反的關係。
其實甜與酸、甜與鹹相反與不相反,和化學性質無關,只是和人的生理需要甚至更高層次的飲食文化有關,如果人類不是人,或者又另一套演化的歷史,則甜、酸、鹹的對應關係就不同,甚至不再用甜、酸、鹹來分辦食物,甜、酸、鹹是人類演化的產物。
甜與鹹的相反的意義則只表現在中國人吃東西的習慣上,因為中國人通常是吃完鹹再吃鹹,又或者一餐只吃甜或鹹,較少會甜與鹹夾雜在菜式中。甜與鹹對於人的神經系統來說,只代表兩種不同的食物,本質上並無相反的關係。
其實甜與酸、甜與鹹相反與不相反,和化學性質無關,只是和人的生理需要甚至更高層次的飲食文化有關,如果人類不是人,或者又另一套演化的歷史,則甜、酸、鹹的對應關係就不同,甚至不再用甜、酸、鹹來分辦食物,甜、酸、鹹是人類演化的產物。
水,環保,思考
環保的觀念,自我小學以來就耳熟能詳,在最低層次說來,把現有的天然資源盡量利用,別浪費,以免對地球做成不可挽回的破壞,最後傷及人類自己本身。這個理 念簡單直接,一說便明白了,要明白也很簡單。但是,當把這個觀念用在水上面就出了問題,因為其他的天然資源在本身的性質上是可供任何人在正常的情況下多次 使用,例如:寫字用的紙,用鉛筆寫完後可以再寫,而第一次用來寫字和第十次用來寫字的分別不大。但是水一是供人飲用,既然是飲用,當然是只可以用一次;如 果是用來清潔的話,水是會愈用愈髒,第一次用和第十次用水的效果當然不同,因為後者我們用的是水的清潔能力,而它是和水被用的次數成反比,但是紙的載上字 體能力,卻不會因多次使用而大顯箸下降,因此紙可以再用,水卻不可以再用。在某種意義下,因為當我們用水時,用的是它的清潔能力,而它的清潔能力是直接和 水的可重用性掛勾,用水時侯我們不是在用水,我們其實是在消秏水的可重用性,因此提倡環保用水在邏緝是自相矛盾的。
2008年7月27日 星期日
Green Olympic?
Beijing win the bid for 2008 Olympic by label it as Green Olympic, and I think label is the best description of the level of understanding of the concept of Environmentalism by Communist China, much akin to its level of understanding of Chinese culture, if any other than the custom and ritual, otherwise why the necessity of Cultural Revolution?
Environmentalism has its roots in beginning which man is separated from Nature as a whole when s/he gain consciousness, then religion is born to compensate this lost. By the advent of industrialization, the relationship between humanity and nature is further deteriorate to the role of exploiter. Capitalism, which is the embodiment of industrialization, has extend the idea of making profit through exploitation instead of cooperation to its fullest extend. Environmentalism grow as a movement to reshape the connection between humanity and nature from that of exploitation to harmony, from competition to cooperation. Therefore the idea Green Capitalism is something close to oxymoron, so do the idea of Green Olympic.
The most Environmental friendly way of doing Olympic is NOT doing it at all. Consider how many carbon dioxide and Green house gas is emitted by sportspersons and tourists when they are traveling to Beijing by airplane or other means of transportation? How would it add to the Green House effect? Is that a requirement of Beijing Olympic committee for all the travel to be carbon neutral? To be less demanding, since Internet is not advance to a level that the sportsperson could compete through the Internet, but at least we can reduce the amount of expenditure of energy by all watching the events from the Internet. Would the holder of Green Olympic welcome this idea if it is sincerely believe in the goods of environment?
Definitely not, since what beneath the surface of Green Olympic is a dog-eat-dog ultra-capitalistic society. The goal of this ‘Green Olympic’ is to maximize the amount of tourist and the amount of consumption to fill the expanding appetite of citizen who substitute the political freedom to that of freedom of buy-and-sell-anything-they-wanted from dog to endangered species to personal airplane to sex salve. How would hundreds and thousands of tourist and sportsperson do to the already fragile and overloaded ecosystem in China? Is that also a requirement from Beijing Olympic Committee for all tourists and sportspersons to behave in ecologically sensitive way throughout the Olympic Game? Does Beijing Olympic Committee constructed the Beijing in such a way that whatever the tourist and sportsperson do, it would always be carbon neutral and not causing any pollution and damage to environment? It certainly contradict the real goal of Beijing Olympic. Do we expect Beijing Olympic Committee to ensure capitalist who just made huge profit during the Olympic Game to be environmental considerate when spending their money? Does Beijing Olympic Committee ever concern of the effect on the environment after this artificial booming of economy?
Moreover, how would it do to the environments other than the city of Beijing when most of resource and attention is devoted to Beijing for the sake of window dressing? Since ecosystem is inherently a connected whole, by overfocusing on one place to be detriment of other would not do much good to environment of China as a whole, let alone the Earth as a whole. How sincere is its goal of benefit the environment of China as a whole when Communist China shut down the website of Green activist, and place them under house arrest, knowing that would increase the level of corruption in other cities?
If Beijing Olympic could be consider as a Green Olympic by solely focus on the process of Olympic Games but not the context under which it is happening, then why don’t we nominate Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot for Nobel Peace Prize because they reduce the load on environment by massacring million of their own citizens?
2008年7月25日 星期五
香港上下一代的行為分別(1)
香港上下一代最大的分別是在看電視時,上一代比較接受任何的電視節目,無論電視節目質素如何都不習慣轉台,甚至有一些上一代是不懂各電視台的編號的,遑論 依電視時間表來選擇節目了。因為在上一代心目中的,電視只要有節目就是娛樂,不會有所要求,而新一代往往主動選擇自己喜歡看的節目來看,不喜歡看的節目可 以不看。反映出新一代是事事較為主動,傾向於創造環境,而舊一代事事較為被動,傾向於適應環境。上下一代的行為分別可能和香港社會的政治制度發展有關,上 一代時是行政主導,不少下一代都生長於政制相對開放的80/90年代。
2008年7月22日 星期二
環保的北京奧運?
北京奧運稱自己為環保奧運會,因為它的場所建成時合乎環境保護的標準,而能源亦是來自太陽 能,但是有沒有人從整體的角度去看北京奧運如何合乎環保呢?說環保不單是目標環保,過程、方法和結果同樣要環保。而環保思維,並不單單是指物質層面上的環 保,亦指精神/社會/政治/經濟上的環保;環保指的是人重建被工業文明的演進而破壞的和大自然的關係,而最後的目標不單是人和環境的和諧,亦指人和人之間 的和諧,亦指前者和後者的和諧,而最終的目的是重新把人放到自然的一部份去生活。因為工業文明最大的破壞不單是自然環境,亦是把人和自然的關係由平等改成 人類征服自然,同時人本身亦被資本主義的經濟模式異化人和其他人之間都成了互相利用的關係。現在中共國的「超級資本主義」經濟模式,不單是國家把人當成經 濟生產的工具,凡事只考慮人的經濟價值,因為國家和人之間的關係是剝削,人所以和人之間的關係亦是剝削;因為人和人之間的關係亦是剝削,所以人和自然環境 的關係亦是剝削。例如中共硬性規定汽車依車牌的單雙數隔日行車,表面上是一時減低了空氣污染,卻沒有考慮當日不可以開車的車主的生活需要,以環保之名去腐 蝕他們的行動自由,環保因此成了不少人的公敵,如此的環保政策,以人和環境為名向人和人的和諧宣戰,忽略了人本身亦是大自然的一部份,人的需要亦是環保的 考慮,環保是要有機的手段去解決整個生活模式帶來的問題,考慮現在亦考慮將來。依此思路想到:會不會因為減少了北京現在的空氣污染,卻增加了其他地區的空 氣污染?會不會因為減少了北京現在的空氣污染,卻將來北京的空氣污染?會不會因為減少了北京現在的空氣污染,卻增加將來行管制空氣污染政策的難度?
最環保的奧林匹克運會,應該是各國的觀衆留在自己國家,透過人造衛星轉播觀看北京奧運會,因為大量的觀衆搭各種交通工具前往北京,會排出大量的溫室氣體, 加速地球暖化,當然北京不會應承。而北京奧運會更會豉勵遊客盡情消費,如何的消費才合乎環保原則?就算生產過程如何環保,但消費一些本來不會消費的物品即 是浪費,如何合乎環保的原則?另外,如何保證遊客在北京奧運會其間的一舉一動都合乎環保原則?如何確保生產遊客消費品的過程及結果都合乎環保原則?如何確 保中共國人不會因為收入增加,奧運會完成後更大量的消費,間接破壞環境?如何確保中共不會因為北京奧運會得來的大量收入用在最破壞環境,不理人民死活的土 木工程上呢?另外,因為北京奧運會,而被漠視了其他的環境問題,如沙膜化、水土流失、水源及空氣污染惡化,又如何合乎環保原則?因為北京奧運會,北京拒絕 各地民衆因涉及環境的問題上訪北京,做成地方政府可以膜視各地的環境問題,又如何合乎環保原則?因為北京奧運會,北京拒絕各地民衆上訪北京,做成地方政府 更明目張膽侵吞原本用來改善環境的款項,又如何合乎環保原則?因為北京奧運會,中共補捉環保份子,關閉他們的網站,阻礙他們用民間的力量去監察地方政府在 環境問題上胡作非為,又如何合乎環保原則?
如果北京奧運會可以算環保,為什麼希特拉、毛澤東、赤柬的波爾布特不可以因大量減低人口,降低地球生態系統負擔而獲提名為諾具爾和平獎得主?
2008年7月16日 星期三
熱和涼
(思想史:中三)
熱和涼是感覺,而冷和暖是溫度,一直以來都以為它們是指同一件事,因為天氣冷所以覺得寒,因為天氣暖所以覺得熱。直至後來有一次,翻開了高等物理的 課本,才發覺當風在動時,代表空氣粒子動能增加,換句話說,效果和溫度上升一樣?因此出現了矛盾,溫度上升反而令人更涼快,何解?是不是說身體的感覺並不 真實反映外界的環境?
後來才知道,風之所以令人涼快,不是在於風的本身,而在於風帶動空氣粒子做成的效果,因為天氣熱,人的生理反應是會流汗,而空氣粒子動能增加的後果是增加 汗的蒸發速度,汗的蒸發的效應就是被空氣的熱能啟動了液態轉氣態的物理反應,而在過程中反而吸入了比啟動能更多的熱能,因此做成身體溫度下降的效果。因 此,是身體本身變得比空氣涼快,而神經系統產生感覺所反映的不是過程的本身,只是過程的結果;而感覺反映的不是外界的環境的變化,而是身體內在的環境的變 化。因此科學書本上說人的感覺不敏銳,有誤差,只是對了一半,而是因為人的感覺系統只是為了人類的生存而設,不是為了準確偵測外在的環境,熱和涼是人的神 經系統經過複雜的運作,而外界環境又和生物反應不停互動反饋,理性思維為了表達這一過程而用語言創造出來的慨念物件,理性思維的前提是自我意識,而自我意 識又是神經系統活動的結果。我們本來是生活在一個抽象世界,而所感知的世界其實是我們神經系統整體活動所形成出來的自我意識所建構出來的心理世界,真實的 物理世界我們永遠接觸不到。
人的本質,是自我中心,人是不可能完全客觀的,因此人必須明白自己的本質是什麼,才可以理解世界。人最大的錯誤,是把主觀印象的誤會為客觀的事賁,眼晴看 不到眼晴自己在看,如果人再明正言順在性格上「自我中心」,則他/她和事實的實相愈走愈遠,由「being-in-the-world」變成全知全能全善 的「world-being」!
2008年7月4日 星期五
真哲學和偽哲學的分別
常常聽見別人說他的人生哲學,我於是想:哲學其實有兩個功用,亦可分作真偽。有一些人的哲 學,在心理上的作用是文過飾非,為自己的行為、選擇找一個漂亮/抽象/冠冕堂皇的籍口,在事情發生以後來建立自己行為的連續性,其實他自己心裏比誰都清 楚,他只是不經思考而隨便做的決定,這是我心目中的偽哲學;相反,有另一些人事事都講求原則和理由,時刻都追求自己行為的合理性,因此他會盡量在事前想清 楚一件事才做,希望事情的動機、過程和結果盡量和他的做人原則/哲學相乎,例如他的人生哲學是「平等主義」者,則他做什麼事都是以平等的理念為先,盡量對 所有人一視同仁,而不是對人的態度一時一樣,隨自己的情緒起伏而定。另外,前者會檢討自己的人生哲學看起來合不合理,想一想如何在過往不同的選擇建立連貫 性,像中共一樣調整整體哲學/理論來適合自己的行為,例如一時又毛澤東理論,一時又鄧小平理論,一時又「三個代表論」等等;後者則會檢討自己的行為合不合 乎自己的人生哲學,如何令未來自己的行為更有一致性及整體性,如何避免自己的行為出錯,如何減低行為和人生哲學不相乎發生的機會等;保守主義者,可能因為 一次待油站惡劣態度的店員太有禮貌而深深懊悔,檢討自己在什麼情況會忽然對低下階級的人友善,如何避免此等情況發生等。
在心理學的研究,亦支持人可以以行為的連貫性來分類的說法,有一些人的行為可預測性較高,因為他們講求原則,要世界乎合他們的做事方式;相反,另一些人的 行為可預測性較低,因為他們較重視的是適應環境,如何和環境配合而作出最有利自己的選擇。一般來說,行為的內在連貫性對於同一個人來說,多數是常數,即真 哲學的人行真哲學的路,偽哲學的人行偽哲學的路,各不相干。
心理學算不算科學的一門?
我在大學讀書的時侯,因為我讀的是心理學,有一天被同房們為難,說我讀的不是科學,而心理學及社會科學,因為心理學針對的對象是不可以量化的人,而所謂研 究亦不過是一個慨念/思想的文字遊戲,在本質不如物理及化學等是具體可以量化、看得見的科學。我不得不同意他們的部份觀點,即如果以研究的對象來劃分,心 理學及社會科學把人量化,是有點勉強,即用來研究的方法和研究的對象並不配合。物理學可以數粒子的數量、波鋒和波谷,全部研究數據都可以直接由觀測被研究 對象而來,研究的抽象性低,可以用客觀的工具來建立客觀性,所以較客觀;相反,心理學/社會科學研究人的情緒、喜惡,幾乎所有的研究數據都必須透過「旁敲 側擊」來獲知,因為研究者不是被研究者本身,你如何去保證你得到的數據一定是被研究者本身的「客觀、真實」情況?又如何去定義在心理學上什麼為之「客觀 性」?如果各研究者有各研究者的客觀性標準,則心理學的本質似乎是由一開始便註定陷入了沒完沒了的爭辯,得不到一些客觀有用的內容。
但是我不同意他們的論點在於我心目中的科學是以科學方法來定義,即研究的過程而不是研究的對象本身來決定該學科的屬性,因此不論研究的對象本質是什麼,用 合乎邏緝的科學方法學過程去研究任何對象,得出數據用有數學理論支持的統計學方法來分研、歸納,它就是科學。而科學理論本身一定是抽象的,只有最基礎、最 表層的現象才是看來是十分具體,所謂測量本身就是一個抽象化的過程,其實不單人是一個整體,而每一件事都可視作完整的整體,測量就是把整體的一部份孤立出 來用公共的客觀性標準來量;例如物理學,為什麼我們去觀量一個性質如粒子的數量、波鋒和波谷而不是它的形狀、顏色或其他特質?到底所謂研究的方法和研究的 對象配合不配合的結論是如何由被研究的對象導出?物理學和心理學還不是從它們的理論去導出來?物理學用的客觀性標準是公制的尺,是因為所有人看來的結果都 不會相差得太遠,其實和心理學的各種問卷如WICS、MMPI不是用反覆的研究去確保它在所以研究者依預定的程序來問而得出來的數據不會因研究者而異,在 本質上不是大同小異嗎?如果說心理學是反過來由理論主導整體心理學研究過程,則物理學何嘗不是先有理論,再由理論決定研究什麼和用什麼方法研究?物理學可 以做實驗,心理學同樣可以做實驗,大家都是在驗證抽象的理論,物理學的理論為何會抽象得比心理學具體?所有科學背後其實是由最抽象的數學在背後支持?有人 可以解釋為什麼用統計學理論的方法可以合理地由邏緝導出它的統計學結論?數字背後本身亦不過是數字!如果心理學是思想遊戲,整個科學都是思想/文字遊戲!
但是我不同意他們的論點在於我心目中的科學是以科學方法來定義,即研究的過程而不是研究的對象本身來決定該學科的屬性,因此不論研究的對象本質是什麼,用 合乎邏緝的科學方法學過程去研究任何對象,得出數據用有數學理論支持的統計學方法來分研、歸納,它就是科學。而科學理論本身一定是抽象的,只有最基礎、最 表層的現象才是看來是十分具體,所謂測量本身就是一個抽象化的過程,其實不單人是一個整體,而每一件事都可視作完整的整體,測量就是把整體的一部份孤立出 來用公共的客觀性標準來量;例如物理學,為什麼我們去觀量一個性質如粒子的數量、波鋒和波谷而不是它的形狀、顏色或其他特質?到底所謂研究的方法和研究的 對象配合不配合的結論是如何由被研究的對象導出?物理學和心理學還不是從它們的理論去導出來?物理學用的客觀性標準是公制的尺,是因為所有人看來的結果都 不會相差得太遠,其實和心理學的各種問卷如WICS、MMPI不是用反覆的研究去確保它在所以研究者依預定的程序來問而得出來的數據不會因研究者而異,在 本質上不是大同小異嗎?如果說心理學是反過來由理論主導整體心理學研究過程,則物理學何嘗不是先有理論,再由理論決定研究什麼和用什麼方法研究?物理學可 以做實驗,心理學同樣可以做實驗,大家都是在驗證抽象的理論,物理學的理論為何會抽象得比心理學具體?所有科學背後其實是由最抽象的數學在背後支持?有人 可以解釋為什麼用統計學理論的方法可以合理地由邏緝導出它的統計學結論?數字背後本身亦不過是數字!如果心理學是思想遊戲,整個科學都是思想/文字遊戲!
2008年7月3日 星期四
香港的文化大革命?
據某些年青人說,當子女在反駁父母的說話時,上一代有一句口頭襌:「你是不是紅衛兵在清算我?」連本人亦深受其害,是故決定為這一代呼一下冤,順便為上一代補充一下歷史知識。
如果子女是紅衛兵,則誰是毛澤東呢?父母是不是毛澤東呢?父母是不是覺得子女像紅衛兵一樣盲目相信毛澤東的理論,用來打壓父母的言論自由?如果是的話,子 女是如何利用毛澤東的思想來打壓了父母的言論自由、思想自由?抑或是子女是如何利用毛澤東的思想來打壓了父母的傳統權威呢?為什麼父母會覺得他的子女會懂 得什麼叫毛澤東思想?父母自己是用什麼去定義毛澤東思想呢?父母知不知道什麼叫毛澤東思想呢?
我以為父母一代都是把凡是抗拒上一代的傳統權威的理論/思想,通通都歸類成毛澤東思想,忽然間毛澤東不單是主張人民民主專政,而是主張青年該有自己的私人 空間、遲回家不用通報家長、喜歡和什麼人拍拖就和什麼人拍拖、可以穿着父母不喜歡的衣服,我真想不毛澤東思想是如此有前瞻性,不單是政治,更連現代的吃拉 穿都包括在內!
可以想像的是,一般情況下子女都是在嘗試擺事實、講理由,但是父母不滿下一代為什麼不像他們自己一代這樣對上一輩言聽計從,因此子女的行為在父母心目中, 仿如文化大革命的紅衛兵在鬥爭父母一樣,不留情面。他們可以有想過,在真正的文化大革命時,父母不單被反駁,更要受酷刑,不知父母是不是覺被子女「教訓」 是酷刑的一種?他們可以有想過,動以文化大革命來壓制理性討論一件事的機會,以紅衛兵不光彩的歷史來侮辱想理性討論的人,不把任何討論理性化,卻用自己的 歷史上的權威來壓人,其行為的目的和毛澤東當年要人人把他奉若神明有什麼分別?毛澤東要年青人不加思考而全盤接受他的理念,而父母則要子女無條件照單全收 父母的管理子女理念!
如果子女是紅衛兵,則誰是毛澤東呢?父母是不是毛澤東呢?父母是不是覺得子女像紅衛兵一樣盲目相信毛澤東的理論,用來打壓父母的言論自由?如果是的話,子 女是如何利用毛澤東的思想來打壓了父母的言論自由、思想自由?抑或是子女是如何利用毛澤東的思想來打壓了父母的傳統權威呢?為什麼父母會覺得他的子女會懂 得什麼叫毛澤東思想?父母自己是用什麼去定義毛澤東思想呢?父母知不知道什麼叫毛澤東思想呢?
我以為父母一代都是把凡是抗拒上一代的傳統權威的理論/思想,通通都歸類成毛澤東思想,忽然間毛澤東不單是主張人民民主專政,而是主張青年該有自己的私人 空間、遲回家不用通報家長、喜歡和什麼人拍拖就和什麼人拍拖、可以穿着父母不喜歡的衣服,我真想不毛澤東思想是如此有前瞻性,不單是政治,更連現代的吃拉 穿都包括在內!
可以想像的是,一般情況下子女都是在嘗試擺事實、講理由,但是父母不滿下一代為什麼不像他們自己一代這樣對上一輩言聽計從,因此子女的行為在父母心目中, 仿如文化大革命的紅衛兵在鬥爭父母一樣,不留情面。他們可以有想過,在真正的文化大革命時,父母不單被反駁,更要受酷刑,不知父母是不是覺被子女「教訓」 是酷刑的一種?他們可以有想過,動以文化大革命來壓制理性討論一件事的機會,以紅衛兵不光彩的歷史來侮辱想理性討論的人,不把任何討論理性化,卻用自己的 歷史上的權威來壓人,其行為的目的和毛澤東當年要人人把他奉若神明有什麼分別?毛澤東要年青人不加思考而全盤接受他的理念,而父母則要子女無條件照單全收 父母的管理子女理念!
上下一代的思想鴻溝(1)
上一代指1970年以前出世的一代,我這個劃分有點隨意,其實應用本身思想的可塑性代替年齡的分界。我不以為只要是年青人的思想,就一定比較容易適應環境 的變化;而年紀較大的人,就一定是老頑固。依此而言,上下一代的其中一個思想/行為分野是下一代人比較不容易盲目相信權威,而上一代較容易盲目相信權威。 這個分別,和現代社會資訊發達,及現代社會政制相對民主開放有關。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)