標籤:
華利
wtf點唱站(三)：WTF
標籤:
以身試法,
舒爾賽
WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS. YOU KNOW, THE STANDARD AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY CRAP.
警告：本物品內容可能令人反感，不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。在此﹐推卸一切責任。 (I am a copycat, this paragraph is copy from 鯤鵬居)
第一首歌先贈政府
LMF - What the fuck
再贈一班要淨化香港粗口的無腦官員
Limp Bizkit - Hot Dog (我聽過暫時為止最多Fuck的歌)
三贈一班恐「具」症，恐「奶」症的官員
布拉克之戀(The Unbearable Lightness of Being) - 米蘭昆德拉原著
索多瑪120天(Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma) - 薩德侯爵原著
頭條網女博客抄文取獎出書兼歪理連篇
標籤:
katana 刀劍江湖
頭條網上一名blogger抄另一sina blogger文章。
頭條網在出了一本 my blog 100的書，又攪頒獎活動，又書展宣傳。
抄文者厚顏無恥當正自己光榮，當正自己創作。
被發現後與原作者的網上對話寸到爆。
很多blogger看到眼火爆，人人喊打條仆街，皆因使用字眼真很過份。
抄文抄到甘x寸都算新聞。
抄文者其後見勢色不對，關了部份網誌但又另一位置撰文表白。
原本唔關園主既事，但係睇完篇所謂表白，和一些所謂開心莎莎支持者，火到黎埋，直情想拔劍。
再看前兩者對話，怪唔知班blogger和被盜文者甘火。
今受害向頭條網發文，頭條網主打官腔只發一文章聲明，都算不知所謂。
受侵權者很無助，在應該如何做中頭痛。
不能姑息此奸，現特書新春秋，期各劍仙下山一看此case，左冷禪先生，倉海君大俠和諸位仙家，出山一看嗎？我們仍然有孩子要教育，如此大陸道德觀侵入盜文竟然厚顏無恥歪理狗鳴，是什麼社會，仍能正常嗎，不如叫個仔長大去做龍頭大哥好過老老實實做正行，橫豎有錢人跟黑社會根本沒分界。
大行皇帝諡號芻議
標籤:
瞎扯淡
九龍皇帝歸天,曾氏蔭權沒有強政勵治對其傑作開殺戒,在意料之外,亦在意料之中."乞人憎"點講,彼等其實只是出於多一事不如少一事而已,至於會否積極"進行修護保育工作",情況未見樂觀.所以為此歡喜踴躍,未免言之過早.先帝墨寶,如黃霑之詞,羅文的歌聲,是港人本土文化意識的重要組成部分,遑論洗擦,連說成塗鴉,都是一種冒犯.除了寫祭文,留御跡,接下來應該是定諡號矣.據諡法,淵源流通,合民安樂曰康,聰明睿哲,知質有聖曰獻,故可諡之康獻帝.不合邏輯麼? 先帝筆力深厚,墨瀋流通於香港任何一處你想像不到的旮旯,甚至衝出維港,登上蘇富比等大雅之堂呢.至於聰明...這個具爭議性,天才白痴只隔毫釐,很難判斷.但從三十年來風雨不改,無懼牢獄之災,懶理世俗白眼,倘無不動如虛空的大智,定無今日舉世公認之大成就.或曰應諡之為哀,蓋因登極以來,國運盛極而衰,以至零三年民怨沸騰,瘟疫肆虐也.此話不通.建華之亂,孰令致之,早有定論.讓所有惡諡隨當日那幫庸官悍吏(更包括今日淫審署內的)搬進棺材吧.哲人萎矣,棟折山頹, 且置生芻一束,永誌腹痛之感.嗚呼尚饕.
mf點唱站(三)：傾心
標籤:
中國音樂,
mf
前文提及的歌，讓我想到下面這首。這首歌據說是寫給周慧敏的(忘了誰，待考)，近日一份雜誌提到劉錫明，當年就是一句「我很欣賞周慧敏」而被某人冠以「毒瘤明」之惡名，至今潦倒。而冠此名之人至今仍不悔，實衰人也。
傾心 Raidas
曲/黃耀光 詞/黃凱芹 編/黃尚偉
曾自問樣子真太笨
曾自問外表都不怎麼吸引
卻妄想跟你同行
請你明白我已暗中因你傾心
人越近越不敢發問
人越近越不趕緊我心拉近
我的心窩已下沉
心裡留住了只有苦困
如何在你心窗一角
朦朧呈現我的愛
縱是驟晴驟雨儘管昏昏暗
祈求在你窗外徘徊
任這風吹雨打去
我仍然情願更甘心不悔恨
(我都甘心我都甘心去等
這份情仍在我深心烙印)
無奈的讓風光旖旎
無奈的讓他將歡欣交給你
我的悲傷都給你癡情
寧靜裡讓我可跟你一起
沉默地任痴心塌地
沉默地在唏噓中送走希冀
剩我空虛中記憶
依然仍在偷偷想你
延伸閱讀：
別人的Blog：提到了也是Raidas的別人的歌，還有我也很喜愛的周慧敏的如果你知我苦衷。
R.I.P, tribute to 九龍皇帝曾灶財
標籤:
南極星沉,
祭文,
舒爾賽
Copy from am730
鑒聖 君恩殯寢龍 皇仙 列懋峻深皇玉金皇孝維
此慈 親勤宮殿輀 考馭 聖三德仁考几扉考子蔭
哀 莫教愴移而 為遐 綿十同浹大徒乍大嗣權
慕 報育丹至曉彛沖生升績憶餘天池行陳啟行皇元
生常旐止發典子民四而萬載 皇尚難皇帝年
成懷之 将敬負而海耄斯之 帝想伸帝 歲
之風前 由卜荷憂之期年精 垂視神 次
德木驅 良鴻瘁遙不之勤 衣膳位 丁
茲之悲 辰基因兆倦曆仰 之之前 亥
以思銅 戒念政民稀祚承 度誠曰 七
牲義墀 羽継事之齡垂 禮 月
牢重之 仗述以眾甫裕 式 丁
酒 水 以之焦咸屆後 遵 謹未
醴 永 宵維勞知 昆 祖 昭朔
敬 隔 嚴艱遽 縂 饋 告越
行 嗚 駕撫失 萬 情 於十
薦 呼 心瞻 幾 彌 二
獻 膺若 而 切 日
伏 而喪 日 於 庚
冀 永依 昃 攀 申
慟若 不 號
爰喪 遑 灑
稽考 熙 淚
妣 庶 抒
属 詞
當 薦
馨
預
告
欽
惟
《無法寫》
標籤:
詩詞歌賦,
hystericireul
You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave
忽然我便啞了
如同黑夜驟然降臨
死去和睡著原本沒有分別吧
如果死去，我的身上會再開花
而我身軀沉澱在泥土中
在我的眼珠上開花
在我的雙手結出嫩芽
肋骨也許會因為孤獨不好而變成一個女子
讓我的唇重新學習語言
吻出一片待放的花瓣
而
──不知是可惜可幸還是可恨──
如果只是睡著了，我會染得一身深綠色的異香
螞蟻不屑爬過我的身體
我也逃不脫這沉重的身體
也逃不出三呎乘六呎的囹圄
如果努力保持清醒
可以獲得一點八米乘一點八米乘一點八米作為獎勵
限時之前入睡王子
到達之前醒來
藤蔓爬上我的嘴角前我便會醒了
我雙眼只能看到黑色
我許是給蒙上雙眼，也可能是我瞎了
又或者我睡著了，更可能是我死了
種子正從眼珠冒起
我看不見前路連雙手也看不見
靠甚麼來摸索前路
靠甚麼來向你問路
睡著了又如何，還會否有醒來的一天？
我忘記了發音如同忘記了寫字
抱膝坐著而不能畫出道路
疏理我混亂的思緒
（所謂的抱膝也不過是漠然的猜想）
http://www.xanga.com/hystericireul/606157982/1229828961278612353112299.html
學就是覺嗎?
標籤:
掬香齋主人
這種不學而能的慘事正好為我們提供一個窺探人心的好機會。到底學習是甚麼一回事呢?學、覺兩字讀音是極相似的，而且學、覺二字在讀破的時候(效、骹)也是對應地相近的。所以我疑心所謂學就是把一些知識、技能從沉睡之中喚醒。這很有點像柏拉圖的回憶說：所謂學習只是把靈魂在理念世界中看過的東西重新回憶起來罷了。"只有記憶力是不可摧毀的"，假使柏拉圖從死裡面復活的話定當引為知己。
先對照一下我們常人是如何學：在這裡我要再向巴浦洛夫的狗說聲多謝，是牠令我們推知重覆的動作培養了條件反射；中文字"習"有點似巢上的一對翼，令我們想到雛鳥學飛的時候重覆拍翼的動作，那就是"月令"季夏之月所講的"鷹乃學習"(1)，重覆就是常人把意識以下的潛能提取到意識層面的常用方法。當然，那先要假定那些潛能是先在的。
從前的人讀書重背誦經典，那種低迴吟哦的辛勤是不會白費的。背書的目的不是把書文背出，背誦如流只是背熟了之後無可挽回的後果；背書的目的在於要一個人重覆說一些話，不論你理解不理解，同意不同意，總之就是把一些話硬塞進你的潛意識，積少成多，直至變化你的氣質為止，這是一種由粗入細的功夫。積量變而成質變不是隨便說說的。朱子不是說過嗎："所謂致知在格物者，言欲致吾之知，在即物而窮其理也。蓋人心之靈莫不有知，而天下之物莫不有理，惟於理有未窮，故其知有不盡也。是以大學始教，必使學者即凡天下之物，莫不因其已知之理而益窮之，以求至乎其極。至於用力之久，而一旦豁然貫通焉，則眾物之表裡精粗無不到，而吾心之全體大用無不明矣。此謂物格，此謂知之至也。"書讀熟了，爛於胸中，自自然然不自覺的成了另一個人。這和造葡萄酒大有相似之處，壓榨出來的葡萄汁放進橡木桶裡，假之以時日，自然造出葡萄酒，這是未發明造酒之前的人們始料不及的。
至於一個人如何可以知道他未曾學過的東西呢?這大概有兩個可能：一、他是無意識地聽過的，這知識全落到他的潛意識中，只是他不能提取出來吧了。只要誘發得宜，潛意識的深廣是驚人的。催眠、暗示端賴此理。二、假使潛意識的中心處如唯識宗所說就是阿賴耶識，則人身雖是分離，而人心卻不妨相通。如果學的極致就是直抵人心的最深處，那麼，學不就是覺嗎?常人說："腹有詩書氣自華"，如果讀書止於變化氣質，那仍然是常人皮相之談；"精義入神，以致用也"，儘管得於心而應於手，尚且隔了一重；"神而化之﹐在乎其人"，學至乎通神，至矣。
(1)朱子語類卷二十：吳知先問學習二字，曰："學，是未理會得時，便去學；習，是已學了，又去重學。非是學得了，頓放在一處，卻又去習也。只是一件事。如鳥數飛，只是飛了又飛，所謂『鷹乃學習』是也。"先生因言："此等處，添入集注中更好。"按：習字似指雛鳥在巢中重覆拍翼以模仿和忖度飛行的動作，如果未學懂飛而想實習"飛了又飛"﹐那就難免摔死在眼下，所以未必不是先"學得了，頓放在一處"，再去多加練習--"卻又去習也"。這即西人學習理論的強化作用(reinforcement)。但凡學過踏自行車的人當深有體會，是先學懂了如何控制肌肉達致平衡，而後再慢慢的練得純熟，即所謂熟練的地步。吳知先可能對禽類多少有點誤會。
在報上讀到怪事本身固然不算怪事，世界這麼遼闊，人物這麼繁多，那是沒有一天容不下三、兩起怪事的道理的。慶幸的是怪事總算是少數的例外；假使怪事如雨後春筍般在地球上出現，我們傳授下一代常識的教育制度早該消聲匿跡了，這真替那些吃教書飯的人揑一把冷汗。二零零七年七月十五日讀蘋果日報讀到以下的一件怪事，提起的人不很多，想是見怪不怪吧?
印 度 窮 少 年 一 夜 間 會 說 英 語
一 夜 間 英 語 琅 琅 上 口 ， 是 所 有 學 生 的 夢 想 。 印 度 北 方 邦 一 名 14 歲 、 處 在 社 會 最 底 層 的 「 賤 民 」 少 年 ， 幾 個 月 前 在 沒 有 外 力 幫 助 下 ， 突 然 說 得 一 口 流 利 英 語 ， 母 語 反 而 說 得 結 結 巴 巴 ， 最 厲 害 是 他 還 懂 得 豐 富 的 數 理 知 識 ， 令 人 驚 訝 不 已 。
不 言 不 語 三 個 月 後 現 奇 跡
拉 杰 什 （ Rajesh ） 的 突 變 ， 始 於 近 一 年 前 ， 當 時 他 和 哥 哥 在 砌 牆 ， 卻 遭 精 神 有 問 題 的 爸 爸 無 故 破 壞 ， 盛 怒 之 下 拉 杰 什 用 磚 塊 把 爸 爸 砸 得 頭 破 血 流 ， 闖 禍 後 拉 杰 什 不 言 不 語 長 達 三 個 月 ， 當 他 再 度 開 腔 ， 吐 出 的 卻 是 標 準 美 式 英 語 ， 自 小 所 操 的 印 度 方 言 反 而 忘 了 怎 樣 說 。
一 夜 間 ， 拉 杰 什 會 說 英 語 ， 還 懂 得 很 多 物 理 、 數 學 知 識 ， 對 大 學 生 和 科 學 家 的 提 問 對 答 如 流 。 他 去 年 入 讀 當 地 「 克 林 頓 科 學 技 術 中 心 」 ， 校 長 維 爾 馬 （ Shishu Pal Singh Verma ） 說 ︰ 「 共 和 日 慶 祝 活 動 當 天 ， 由 學 生 向 全 校 師 生 朗 誦 詩 歌 ， 拉 杰 什 突 然 拿 起 咪 高 峰 ， 用 流 利 英 語 發 言 … … 我 們 都 驚 呆 住 。 」
拉 杰 什 已 寫 了 三 本 關 於 記 憶 力 、 社 會 學 和 自 由 化 的 書 ， 現 正 計 劃 參 與 研 究 。 外 界 紛 紛 傳 言 莫 非 拉 杰 什 擁 有 異 能 關 乎 「 輪 迴 轉 世 」 ？ 拉 杰 什 否 定 這 個 說 法 ， 但 充 滿 玄 機 地 道 ︰ 「 只 有 記 憶 力 是 不 可 摧 毀 的 。 」
印 度 《 印 度 時 報 》
這種不學而能的慘事正好為我們提供一個窺探人心的好機會。到底學習是甚麼一回事呢?學、覺兩字讀音是極相似的，而且學、覺二字在讀破的時候(效、骹)也是對應地相近的。所以我疑心所謂學就是把一些知識、技能從沉睡之中喚醒。這很有點像柏拉圖的回憶說：所謂學習只是把靈魂在理念世界中看過的東西重新回憶起來罷了。"只有記憶力是不可摧毀的"，假使柏拉圖從死裡面復活的話定當引為知己。
先對照一下我們常人是如何學：在這裡我要再向巴浦洛夫的狗說聲多謝，是牠令我們推知重覆的動作培養了條件反射；中文字"習"有點似巢上的一對翼，令我們想到雛鳥學飛的時候重覆拍翼的動作，那就是"月令"季夏之月所講的"鷹乃學習"(1)，重覆就是常人把意識以下的潛能提取到意識層面的常用方法。當然，那先要假定那些潛能是先在的。
從前的人讀書重背誦經典，那種低迴吟哦的辛勤是不會白費的。背書的目的不是把書文背出，背誦如流只是背熟了之後無可挽回的後果；背書的目的在於要一個人重覆說一些話，不論你理解不理解，同意不同意，總之就是把一些話硬塞進你的潛意識，積少成多，直至變化你的氣質為止，這是一種由粗入細的功夫。積量變而成質變不是隨便說說的。朱子不是說過嗎："所謂致知在格物者，言欲致吾之知，在即物而窮其理也。蓋人心之靈莫不有知，而天下之物莫不有理，惟於理有未窮，故其知有不盡也。是以大學始教，必使學者即凡天下之物，莫不因其已知之理而益窮之，以求至乎其極。至於用力之久，而一旦豁然貫通焉，則眾物之表裡精粗無不到，而吾心之全體大用無不明矣。此謂物格，此謂知之至也。"書讀熟了，爛於胸中，自自然然不自覺的成了另一個人。這和造葡萄酒大有相似之處，壓榨出來的葡萄汁放進橡木桶裡，假之以時日，自然造出葡萄酒，這是未發明造酒之前的人們始料不及的。
至於一個人如何可以知道他未曾學過的東西呢?這大概有兩個可能：一、他是無意識地聽過的，這知識全落到他的潛意識中，只是他不能提取出來吧了。只要誘發得宜，潛意識的深廣是驚人的。催眠、暗示端賴此理。二、假使潛意識的中心處如唯識宗所說就是阿賴耶識，則人身雖是分離，而人心卻不妨相通。如果學的極致就是直抵人心的最深處，那麼，學不就是覺嗎?常人說："腹有詩書氣自華"，如果讀書止於變化氣質，那仍然是常人皮相之談；"精義入神，以致用也"，儘管得於心而應於手，尚且隔了一重；"神而化之﹐在乎其人"，學至乎通神，至矣。
(1)朱子語類卷二十：吳知先問學習二字，曰："學，是未理會得時，便去學；習，是已學了，又去重學。非是學得了，頓放在一處，卻又去習也。只是一件事。如鳥數飛，只是飛了又飛，所謂『鷹乃學習』是也。"先生因言："此等處，添入集注中更好。"按：習字似指雛鳥在巢中重覆拍翼以模仿和忖度飛行的動作，如果未學懂飛而想實習"飛了又飛"﹐那就難免摔死在眼下，所以未必不是先"學得了，頓放在一處"，再去多加練習--"卻又去習也"。這即西人學習理論的強化作用(reinforcement)。但凡學過踏自行車的人當深有體會，是先學懂了如何控制肌肉達致平衡，而後再慢慢的練得純熟，即所謂熟練的地步。吳知先可能對禽類多少有點誤會。
香港書展2007
標籤:
.bwd.,
不平則鳴,
瞎扯淡
下班去了書展。
很嘈吵。很多人。很"不行"。
硬件十分不行。我揹著廿多本書由Hall 1走到Hall 2, 像一個死士。想來這次場地設計的人大抵是從不讀書, 只看光碟的。他們不明白, 這是一個書展, 入場的人是會買書的。而書, 不比光碟, 是很重的。處處都是九曲十三彎, 他們當自己是諸葛孔明麼?
更可悲的是軟件。各Hall 1的大書商霸佔了最有利的位置, 卻沒有盡出版社的責任 - 推廣書本給讀者。差不多全部大書商的場地都像是阿姆斯特丹的露天二手書攤, 卻又缺乏這些二手書攤對書本的尊重。整個佈局及選書在在顯示出書商們當入場人士只不過是來撈便宜貨的無知小兒。Page One是當中最沒誠意的一間。我心想, 好, 既然你這樣看我, 我也不妨來一次無知之旅。但內心深處, 我真為此感到可惜。
它們辛辛苦苦打造的文化形象/讀風好風氣, 一場書展, 一場如散貨場般的書展, 已將之摧毀淨盡。
主辦單位在這方面也好不了哪裡去。他們聘請的保安一副玄壇般的口面, 當所有入場的人都是賊, 我內心中飄過一絲"被驅不異犬與雞"的苦澀。那些拿著各館指示牌的青少年更不知所謂, 全部沒腰骨的不是站不是靠, 不是"拿著"指示牌是"垂著"指示牌。主辦單位展示如此不自重的形象, 又如何能令人尊重這個書展呢?
不要想甚麼版權交易了。多少年前的事了。現在的參展商, 到書展就是要賣書, 要賺錢。但, 眼見大部份入場的人 - 除了一眾母親 - 都沒太多的收獲。
當人流不能變成收入, 人流就只是一個假大空的標記。
當然, 大的書商總會說自己賺了很多。聽聽Hall 2的書商的心聲吧。
主辦單位更誑言想將香港書展變成一個"景點", 如果明年書展仍是這樣的話, 拜託你千萬不要宣傳。讓遊客看見入場人士不顧別人, 拿著手拉車輾過別人的腳穿來插去; Penguin Classics及Stephen King因大減價而被掏搞得東歪西落, 這就是香港的閱讀文化? 這是一個景點? 你不知醜我也覺得臉紅。
由一班沒有文化的人去"推廣"香港的文化, 罷罷, 請不要對"香港"雪上加霜。
不敢自詡為書痴。但喜歡書, 喜歡讀書, 是的, 我喜歡。恨鋼淪為鐵, 生了锈, 卻竟還在沾沾自喜。
猶記得最初幾年的書展, 帶給我許多閒恬的回憶。也許, 是時候塵封這份回憶了。
教你如何免費入書展(新春秋獨家)
標籤:
以身試法,
舒爾賽
今年前前後後去了幾次書展，若非全都免費入場的話，我對今年的書展著實不太感到興趣。台灣的參展商帶來的書，全都是一些他們的倉底貨，反觀內地今年的展廳，其實質素也與上一年差不多，只是深圳集團那間把書本分類，好找點罷了。而香港參展商，佔地最多，書本最多，但值得買的反而不多，加上全都是七至八折，與一般樓上書店差不多，偶爾有一些一百元三本，或一百元兩本的好書，但總體來說，今年的書展平平無奇，我們或許可稱之為散貨場，大多賣不出的，便全搬往書展促銷。那些明星出的書，老實講真的連看也不想看，幾幅自己的插圖，幾千字也不知有沒有的書本，賣你幾十塊錢，那班粉絲也買得下，難怪香港人現在被內地的人笑你們沒文化。還有某一些blog友出書，本來是一件好事，但我在某些出版社看見有本，兩個推薦序，加上自序，就去了三分一本書，而薄薄的一本書，賣你五六十塊錢，全部文章都出自那blog友的blog，想人買，你當人是傻逼嗎？
因此今年不想浪費金錢，不想被榨取那廿五元的消費者盈餘的朋友，但又想去看看書展有甚麼好書的朋友，你們有福啦！（不過好書多數被人揀去了，例如我在中大出版社見到有本台大出的王叔岷的列子補證便被人騎劫去了，但港大出版的有兩箱是特價書，不過好的書今日也被我與朋友揀去了幾本。）
首先想免費入書展有兩個方法，第一個循正路，經稅務大樓那邊一直去到會展會場，然後循買票那條人龍直上，經過九曲十三彎之後，你會經過會議廳，但請不要買票，你繼續往前行，你會見到有兩邊入口，你去兒童天地那個入口，那裏有人會截人驗票，你不用理會他們，如果多人入場的話你可避過他們的視線，由你左手邊那兩張長矮椅的邊邊那個空位中穿過，然後你會見到第個二驗票關卡，同樣地不用理會他們，你扮沒事，按電梯，你按下或上均可以，如果向下，你便落到地下，再上，如果向上的話那便更方便，你電梯按五字，開門，快步混入人群之中，向右邊的兒童天地方向走去，記緊要快速，那你之後去哪也可以了。
第二個方法是，你在近博覽海濱花園那邊的入口進入（應該是博覽道那邊），問的士司機可能會知。你入到去後，基本上那裏毫無防衛，你沿右手邊的扶手電梯向上，上了一層，那裏有鐵欄及有工作人員把你攔著，你就不可以在那裏進入，所以你再向右拐，經過條長長的走廊，往出口方向去，然後再沿扶手電梯落去，去到那裏，你只要又向右（望向你的右手邊），有條長長的電梯，你再往上，便要往哪裏去都可以了。
最後在此，祝大家好運。
*********************************************
補充秘訣：
1.) 面皮要夠厚
2.) 行動要快速
3.) 人數不能太多（最好三個或以下）
打工隨想
標籤:
五十米深藍,
生活雜寫,
閑人說法,
瞎扯淡
由於打工的位置鄰近上書房, 所以經常看到一班學術或社會界的明星在那邊做talk show, 包括蔡某, 梁某, 蔡某, 以及消失多時的劉某. 劉某比以前整潔了很多, 尤其是那身貼西裝, 價值不菲. 我買了又杯子出的劉某舊書卡拉ok政治論, 再對比一下劉某的現實狀況, 不啻是一個諷刺. 書中第二章, 講及其老師"國師"劉某 (又是劉某), 擁有傳統中國文人學士的陰陽臉, 其中挖苦批評之處, 實在毒辣, 尤如打在七寸之上. 中國文化常說中國文人進廟堂, 是儒家思想, 在野, 是道家思想, 其實是文人權力欲滿足不滿足的表現, 當然這是一概而論, 但歷史上矯情者的確大有人在. 現在再回想劉某, 多年前曾在某電台節目說過不習慣ao生活, 所以脫逃, 現在卻成了顧問, 而且還大搞心戰, 政治化妝那套貝理雅 (不是英國), 美國式政治遊戲 (也不知是曾生教而不善, 還是他功力不足, 曾生還是那個矯揉造作的模樣). 劉某在書中常說, 學術與政治, 始終是兩條不同的道路, 但現在"又像燈蛾撲火般投身政治", 不人劉某是不當自己是文人, 與其師父不同, 還是"重複著他們的老路", 或許將來就會知道.
Sweet Nothings
香港學生的理解能力
標籤:
考試教育,
魚雷
聲明：當然，只是「部份」學生（不作聲明的話，總有白痴會跳出來指我「以偏概全」）
on.cc--考評局荒謬機制
HKEAA--考評局怎樣處理覆核成績申請
「首先，一些考生明明得到了ｃ級的成績，但因為考評局的疏忽下只能取得ｄ級成績，而覆核成績後又要得到比一般ｃ級成績高才能得到ｃ級，這對那些考生極為不公平。」
考評局的網頁則這樣寫：
「以上提升準則不適用於涉及錯誤處理分數的答卷。在此情況下，即使是一分之差，只要答卷的新積分達至上一個等級的最低分數，成績仍會獲提升。」
mf點唱站(二)：誰的眼淚在飛／哭砂
標籤:
中國音樂,
mf
我的房間貼有一張海報，不是明星的海報，是三年前參加一位書籍設計師的畫展所得到的。畫中的她在哭，雖然我也不明白為什麼她要哭。我甚至曾經當場說：「不要哭啦，再哭我就不喜歡妳了。」昨晚看著這張海報，想起了下面的一首歌。前文一留言者嘗言：「即刻喊晒攬住你狂咀」，又讓我想起黃鶯鶯一首名曲，都是跟哭有關的。講多無謂，聽歌！
誰的眼淚在飛 孟庭葦
作曲：陳小霞 填詞：楊立德 編曲：盧志銘
A1 悲傷的眼睛是流星 快樂的眼淚是恆星
滿天都是誰的眼淚在飛 哪一顆是我流過的淚
B1 不要叫我相信 流星會帶來好運
那顆悲傷的逃兵 怎麼能夠實現我許過的願
C 誰的淚在飛 是不是流星的眼淚
變成了世界上每一顆不快樂的心
誰的眼淚在飛 是不是流星的眼淚
誰的眼淚在飛 是不是流星的眼淚
A2 昨天的眼淚變成星星 今天的眼淚還在等
每天都有流星不斷下墜 飛過我迷濛的眼睛
哭砂 黃鶯鶯
曲︰熊美玲 詞︰林秋離 編︰陳志遠
你是我最苦澀的等待
讓我歡喜又害怕未來
你最愛說你是一顆塵埃
偶而會如戲劇的飄進我眼裡
寧願我哭泣 不讓我愛你
你就真的像塵埃消失在風裡
＊你是我最痛哭的抉擇
為何你從不放棄飄泊
海對你是那麼難分難捨
你總是帶回滿口袋的砂給我
難得來看我 卻又離開我
讓那手中瀉落的砂像淚水流
＃風吹來的砂 落在悲傷的眼裡
誰都看出我在等你
風吹來的砂 堆積在心裡
是誰也擦不出的痕跡
風吹來的砂 穿過所有的記憶
誰都知道我在想你
風吹來的砂 冥冥在哭泣
難道早就預言了分離
重唱 ＊,＃
風吹來的砂 冥冥在哭泣
難道早就預言了分離
另，「詩神．西口西面」，什麼叫做「紫撚色」？我曾寫過一首紫色，那是獻給我一位朋友的。紫「撚」色啊！你該是怎麼樣的顏色呢？
![[AAAA.PNG]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIJYeLLNksEIyB6WCKLAH5NOexJeGMY0CsgD1fEKAfaSzrKdZU-RAwOrY3pqU3Sf4Lb-L2JgPU0BtlDTF3UaIbJiC4pSHoT8xWevIXrkjuBAjwZv_TSv7qEa7sqGPJjWnZGct7/s1600/AAAA.PNG)
贈「慶」
標籤:
明日黃花,
舒爾賽,
嬉笑怒罵
首贈朱處長:
農夫 - 最緊要扯旗
LMF - 詠春拳
MC Hotdog - 西門町老人
另贈各熱心傳媒
LMF - 冚家拎
警告：本物品內容可能令人反感；不可將本物品內容派發，傳閱，出售，出租，交給或出借予年齡未滿18 歲的人士出示，播放或播映。
警告：本物品内容可能令人反感；不可将本物品内容派发，传阅，出售，出租，交给或出借予年龄未满18 岁的人士出示，播放或播映。
LEGAL DISCLAIMER WARNING: This article contains material which may offernd and may not be distributed, circulated, sold, hired, given, lent, shown, played or projected to a person under the age of 18 years. All models are 18 or older.
警告：本物品内容可能令人反感；不可将本物品内容派发，传阅，出售，出租，交给或出借予年龄未满18 岁的人士出示，播放或播映。
LEGAL DISCLAIMER WARNING: This article contains material which may offernd and may not be distributed, circulated, sold, hired, given, lent, shown, played or projected to a person under the age of 18 years. All models are 18 or older.
首贈朱處長:
農夫 - 最緊要扯旗
LMF - 詠春拳
MC Hotdog - 西門町老人
另贈各熱心傳媒
LMF - 冚家拎
村長
標籤:
生活雜寫,
arttacker
如是我聞：
有一頭狗，叫做阿才（或財），附近幾家人更常叫牠做「村長」。
村長是自來狗，沒有人知道牠從哪裏來，只知道每天清早，牠總會護送那幾家人的子女到小巴站，目送他們上了車。送了一個又跑回去再送另一個，直到送完了，才回到村裏──嚴格而言那不是一條村，只是幾戶人家幾所屋子形成的「村」，但既然叫牠做「村長」，就當那是一條村吧。
同樣，當住在那兒的人上班時，村長亦會護送他們。下班時也是一樣，村長總會在「村口」等人回來，然後跟着他們到門口，待他們進了家，牠又到村口等其他人回家。
村長如此貼身保護那幾家人，不是沒有原因的。據說，有一次，住在「村」對面不遠處的兩頭狗走了過去，更咬傷了人，當時就是村長撲出來跟那兩頭狗打鬥，更受了傷。自此以後，每當那兩頭惡犬想過去時，村長就會守住關口，讓牠們知難而退。
現在，有一家人替村長領了狗牌，打了防疫針。而每一家受村長保護的居民，都會不時給牠一些食物。
村長有沒有佛性我不知道（聽聞牠喜愛吃附近燒烤場剩下的燒牛排），但牠有人性倒是肯定的──不，對比起好一些人，說村長「有人性」實在是侮辱了牠。
若要人不知，唔好咁低B
標籤:
明日黃花,
舒爾賽
黃子華名句：「若要人不知，唔好咁低B」，我想套在朱生身上確是一絕。沈兄用十年一覺揚州夢來套在朱生身上，但我還是懷疑朱生那十年「爛滾」經驗究竟有幾多真幾多假。而鄧兄在其網誌裏已經言之甚詳，大家不妨參考。
報紙，尤其是東方想「做低」朱培慶（或者更準確點來說是港台）也不是今日的事。找那個自稱20的coco，給她少許錢，我想她連與朱生用甚麼牌子的避孕套或用甚麼「花式」也能倒背如流，只是當中有幾多受東方或壹仔唆擺而亂作便不得而知了。連她自己都當自己是一件貨品，coco與雜誌之間各取所需而已。
朱處長玩了十年，老實講，也太不知價了吧？四千元才可看全裸脫衣舞？四千元上馬檻可以要求陀地model貨色呢！就算上man169，一樓一都四百塊有找，要玩得刁鑽點，千多元可找個援交妹玩兩q，想不到十年經驗的老處長倒比我這紙上談兵的成人論壇小子還要差勁。加上做公務員第一守則是要小心，你要玩也在那會所幹完才出來吧！
不過由今次事件，報章雜誌寫到朱處長有十年經驗，老實講，我不太信得過。事實上除了壹集團與東方集團這兩間公司期下的報章雜誌外，連南華集團期下的雜誌也造假，我舉一例，上個月經過報紙檔，見到第461期快周刊上的標題寫著：「殺同學 姦校花 打盲眼 學校鬥獸場」，然後下面有三幅圖，我一看便知其中一幅是假的。那張相應該是代表姦校花這個主題。但以我這麼多年在成人討論區遊走的經驗，一看便知假。那張相根本由一套香港地下三級片（或私人片）所謂的偷拍系列的其中一齣而已。就如當年網上流傳的香港理工大學造愛偷拍一片，我一上那個網站（當年有個類似youtube web host短片的網站），稍微做一些比對及考掘，便知這根本是日本一些represent偷伯效果的短片來的（雖然那後面的背景紅磚牆很像理工大學那幅，但我有幾個理由可以證明，不過這是後話，後話不提）。
所以說「若要人不知，唔好咁低B」，我勸以後要偷食的政府官員們：「若要人不知，最好小心D」
延伸閱讀：
肥醫生@西九龍貧民區：兩性對朱培慶事件看法的分野
十年感懷
標籤:
有感而發,
舒爾賽,
詩詞歌賦
這一陣子開了一個新的blog，在sina，數數手指，加上與高手們合寫的（我只是用他們作掩護，試筆及玩票性質而已）也有五六個，有一些寫了很久已被埋藏，有些很久以前開過，現在卻在海底打撈上來重新再用。有些回憶該被埋藏就由它埋藏去好了，免得重讀舊作，總是令我啼笑皆非，心想，這般爛文也虧我寫得出。寫了幾年文筆沒有進步，反而以前那種敢試敢不怕「瘀」，寫一些好像感情豐富的文章、散文、詩句，那種感覺已經找不回。
可能現在看回覺得那時很濫情，但總算是少年時的一種青春的躍動或少年的衝勁，甚至是少年的遐想吧？
早前Sina搞了一個回歸十年的徵文比賽，我本也想參加，但這十年我究竟做過些甚麼，竟然竭力也找不出半點。我竟然連自己這十年幹過甚麼都記得不太清楚，只知每日刻板的上學放學，刻板的上班下班。以前的時代還可以用不出仕為由，婉拒官祿，在書齋裏教教書，抑或學陶淵明息交以絕游，在三徑就荒，松菊猶的屋子裏韜光滅跡，頤養天年，就算在班雅明筆下寫資本主義的那個都市「漫遊者」（flâneur）的形像，雖與商品文化脫離不了關係，但起碼那種整天無所事事，閒逛街頭的生活在今天的香港也真算是奢談。
我之前曾在日記內寫過：1967年蔡康平在〈開闢與承擔──謹賀「盤古」之誕生〉說：「近年來許多雜誌都倒閉了，還有不少也快走到盡頭了。今天連一份可看的中文雜誌都沒有，這不能不說是這個時代的中國知識分子的悲哀。老一代的知識分子問題好像發完了，新的一代似乎接不上問題了，腦子是空虛的，思想是貧乏的。」，我想不只1967是這樣，2017也可能是這樣，這可能正是五十年不變，一種重覆的敘事，甚至可能是一種倒退的現象。我又記得以前在另一本書看過說大陸八十年代的話語是你把石子隨便向街外扔都可以扔到個詩人，而九十年代則可以扔到一個廣告人，老實講，現在來說，就算一個殞石墜落到香港，死了幾十萬人，當中也不知會否找到一個詩人。
之前見有人在網誌內談母校。母校這個字對我來說，既熟悉又陌生。十年前雖然我已經不是讀小學，但沒想到我的小學在這十年內就被殺校與人家合併去了，自從上了中學，搬了家後，要直頭要光榮結業那一刻才回去紀念下，出席下，不然，可能我這生也不回小學一次。中學，我讀過三間，一間在中四己給踢了出校，不是校友，雖然還有些相熟的老師，偶爾經過，碰到也會打個照面，噓寒問暖一番，但看著那間我曾經讀過，拚死要加入EMI行列的中學，現在也變得一年的收生比一年差，我想那些神父們看著夕陽的餘暉照著那倘大的球場，會心酸吧？
另外一個乃一間在西環尾的成人中學，那兩年的確遇到名師，但自從我走後不久，中四五就停辦，只辦藝進及成人夜間課程，到今年也完全停辦了，我認識的，全都各散東西，及後幸運地升到上中六，那間學校就在南區，雖然仍繼續營業，我在那裏畢業，也算是校友，但上年我認識的老師，或教過我的老師，也走得七七八八，加上我又搬了居，所以要長途跋涉回去也不知探望誰。
所以母校這個概念或許只存在我的腦海裏，不能用邏輯的定義去解釋，而所謂母校的印像，只能在我記憶中不停地抹去，到最後只餘下概念，甚至只係擬像？我不知道。十年的記憶是如此模糊，我也分不清是我主動把它們封鎖在潛意識中，還是自自然然地忘記了，包括對母校的記憶，對香港的記憶，感情，對國家的認同，甚至連昨日的記憶也可以忘得一乾二淨。所以我只能是一個無根的人，不屬于什麼地方。
一夜思量十年事，幾人強健幾人無。 也因為這個原本不知怎寫的topic，令我思索這十年，但卻找不著半點，一切如現量，如幻如化，如露亦如電。我也不知用陸游的「十年萬事俱變滅，點檢自覺惟身存。」，還是用杜牧的「十年一覺揚州夢，贏得青樓薄倖名」來形容自己的心境好。十年的確不少事物都俱變滅，走到以前住的地方或去過的地方，就像你平時發夢一般，醒來總覺得那個地方你像去過，却又十分陌生。但始終惟身存（就算連自身的存在，存在即被感知，這個問題，現在還沒有甚麼頭緒），這也不知是福還是禍。至于杜牧的十年一覺揚州夢，的而且確，當年杜牧的揚州繁華，與後九七的馬照跑，舞照跳其實基本一樣。不過當年，杜牧還可以去青樓妓院渲泄那種鬱悶，或者可以碰到個像魚玄機那樣的青樓才女與你琴詩唱詠，甚至像韓偓的《香奩集》那樣的艷詩都有市場，可是現今在香港寫這些，除了東方或蘋果的色情版外，就再沒有其他途徑了。劉以鬯先生在六幾年寫的《酒徒》中，那個寫三毫子小說的主角，還勸文藝青年麥荷門不要浪費錢去搞文學雜誌，其實這句話放在今天一點也不過時，甚至現在靠三毫子小說也過不了活（還要冒淫審的風險）。
哈，希望我不要過多十年，寫的會是「三十年來夢一場」，發了一場夢，春夢了無痕呀。希望不要時光一過，兩鬢斑白時還是恍兮惚兮吧。所以賦詩一首如下作結：
十載匆匆夢一場，華胥方醒熟黃梁。
平生捫腹非黃卷，老是晝眠缺青箱。
想棄繻期肥遁日，鄙蝸角羨投簪相。
承歡菽水望懷橘，破甑依然笑上庠。
快餐常餐特餐
標籤:
五十米深藍,
瞎扯淡
政改方案綠皮書, 之唔係abc餐之麻, 都係麥兜有遠見
快餐常餐特餐
聲音演出：吳君如/黃秋生/麥兜
唔該!!我要一個常餐呀!!
常餐??常餐有咩食呀!!
同特餐一樣囉!!
咁特餐係咩黎鮁
同快餐咁上下囉
咁快餐又係咩黎鮁
車~快餐鎹咪係午餐
午餐食咩鮁
午餐同晚餐一樣鮁
咁晚餐又食鱓咩鮁
晚餐咩即係常餐囉
咁呀~我要兩個常餐呀
好野呀~我懐今日D常餐!!
唔好意思!!常餐賣哂播
唔~咁改要特餐呀
特餐~特餐有咩食呀!!
特餐咩即係午餐囉
午餐食乜野鮁
都係晚餐鰟D野囉
咁乜野係晚餐呀
同快餐一樣囉
咁快餐食咩鮁
係~快餐鎹咪係常餐囉
咁你頭先又話冇常餐
係呀~常餐係賣呀,咁你試唔試纒特餐呀!!
兩份特餐啦
唔好意思!!特餐賣哂播
唔~媽媽,不如改快餐呀
快餐有咩鮁
快餐即係常餐
咁常餐有咩鮁
常餐咪即係午餐囉
@也~咁午餐有咩食呀
午餐同晚餐一樣鮁
咁晚餐呢
晚餐咪即係特餐囉
車~咁你頭先又話冇特餐
係呀~特餐係賣呀,咁你試唔試纒個快餐呀!!一樣鮁姐
咁兩份快餐啦
唔好意思!!冇快餐呀
離唔離譜D呀!!咁你懐究竟有D咩餐呀
午餐呀,午餐呀好野呀,
點好野法呀
同晚餐一樣咁好野
咁晚餐又點好野法呀
同常餐一樣咁好野囉
咁常餐又點好野法呀
常餐~常餐一早賣咁啦,你話好唔好野
好啦好啦,要兩份午餐呀
唔好意思!!午餐賣哂,試唔試纒我懐個晚餐呀!!一樣鮁姐
日光日白,食乜鬼野晚餐呀
唉!!個名叫晚餐姐,其實咩即係午餐
好啦好啦,怕鰦你啦,要兩份晚餐呀,快D手呀
想快~想快就要快餐啦
十年一覺
標籤:
瞎扯淡
"十年一覺揚州夢, 嬴得青樓薄倖名"沒有其他句子更貼切形容朱署長了. 不幸被記者撞破,前不巴村後不著店,撇下"艷女",掩面而走,不是薄倖麼?據報道, 人稱謹慎朱的朱署長早在九十年代初已有好此道, 既然作風穩健,為何不"就地正法",而去夜市漫遊? 更令人費解的是, 食米多年竟不知米價,有人搖頭: 花四千元看一場鋼管舞, 實在... ... #$%^&*(!!
古代士人當了官, 狎妓冶游自是家常便飯. 當然不是見得光之事, 但未聞會背負打擊士氣的惡名,須要轟轟烈烈向公眾交代, 被媒體痛剿, 遭抄家問斬還要被小姐唱通巷者.誤墮塵網中,一去三十年.振翮謝籠樊, 復得返自然. 食官府飯古今都辛苦, 但好像以前比現在好, 乖乖, 真是罪過.
mf點唱站之愛情影畫戲和聽不到的說話
標籤:
樂韻悠揚,
mf
在敝blogquote過不少歌詞，憑歌寄意實屬樂事。在友blog更嘗為「偉大」的七一遊行徵曲，這兩首歌頭一首送給我的一位同事，後者獻給「詩神‧西口西面」：
愛情影畫戲 黎明
曲：邰正宵 詞：古倩敏
明明是愛妳 最喜歡妳
情人妳似最美那齣影畫戲
為何沒法向妳 說出一句半句
在內心彷要放棄
明明是愛妳 暗中想妳
情人眼裡最美那齣影畫戲
唯求讓我永遠 每一天去細看
在夢中親妳 吻妳
夜闌靜靜游在淡淡眼眸
天空千億星塵風裡伴奏
一個痴心如驟落 在妳心逗留
求影畫可變真 情人情人不知
暗暗愛妳那天開始
唯求情人妳有天可以 欣賞這個痴心漢子
求影畫可變真 情人情人可知
愛妳愛妳 沒法終止
求明瞭傻漢子 請不要懷疑
藏在心底（我心）詩意 Woo...
聽不到的說話 - 呂方
曲︰杉真理 詞︰向雪懷
誰願意講出一些自欺的說話
妳叫我以後忘掉妳
誰令我今天開始不喜歡講話
暗裡我繼續在想妳
＊怎可掩飾心中的哀傷
手裡感覺到你雙臂的冰凍
看冷雨在臉上的亂爬
＃心中忐忑伸出一雙手
只要只要不顧一切的擁抱
妳叫我的心倒掛
留在妳心底之中另一番說話
妳愛我我是明白妳
誰令妳今天不講內心的說話
暗裡卻繼續在想我
重唱 ＊,＃,＊,＃
當年香港電台十大中文金曲，司徒華曾以老子的名言「大音希聲」送給得獎者。外國又有Sound of Silence之歌，能聽懂「寂靜之音」之人實幾希矣！
日曆計算2007
標籤:
文化討論,
Zostrianos
在Autistic Savants的片段中，我們看到自閉天才計算星期數。其實這些計算人人可做，現在不妨介紹一個簡單戲法，讓大家一分鐘內學會計算2007年任何一天的星期數。
第一步：2007的密碼 －> 1
第二步：由一月至十二月的密碼 －> 6,2,2,5,0,3,5,1,4,6,2,4
第三步：(年碼＋月碼＋日期)÷7，餘數就是答案(1=星期一...... 0=星期日)。
例子：
2007年12月31：(1+4+31)÷7=5．．．1，星期一
11/7/2007補記：
謝謝道士兄另文解釋，轉貼於此，方便讀者參考。
7/11/07
日曆計算術
昨日看過日曆計算2007後﹐ 便想講講其中道理。起初﹐我確實也覺得有點不可思議﹐但係稔稔下就發覺不外如是。第一次留意到日期的變化﹐已是小學的時候﹐因為年年生日都差不多在考中期試﹐不跌落五﹑六﹑日就實無得玩﹐看了幾年﹐發覺每過一年﹐星期幾便順序推後一日﹐但是後來過多兩年又發覺有不靈的時候﹐嘻﹐還是失望居多。
今天看起來﹐便覺得簡單﹐就是潤年第二十九日作怪﹐其實只要有小學數學程度﹐就足以明白當中玄妙。一年365日﹐而能夠整除7的就只得364﹐那一天便是把星期幾推後一日的原因。亦因四年一潤﹐所以28年就成一個圓滿的週期。例如00年的年碼是0﹐01﹑02﹑03年的年碼也會是1﹑2﹑3 respectively﹐但到了04年﹐由於潤年加了一日﹐因此年碼就是5﹐而不是4﹐一﹑二月卻仍是要用4去計。(也可說﹐年碼在潤年的一﹑二月要減一。) 順延而知﹐04-07的年碼是: 5﹑6﹑0﹑1. 08年不是2﹐而是3﹐08-11的年碼就是3﹑4﹑5﹑6. 如此類推。為了方便計算﹐如過把潤年的年碼記下﹐如00﹑04﹑08﹑12﹑16﹑20﹑24年﹐它的排列必定是:0531642(不用硬記﹐0-6﹐減 2減2逆向走)﹐因此2028年的年碼﹐就必定是0﹐2032就是5...如此類推。
年份沒有問題﹐便到月﹐月份日子除七的餘數﹐便是: 6, 2, 2, 5, 0, 3, 5, 1, 4, 6, 2, 4 這系數的來源﹐如何來呢? 月份的日子是: 31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31. 每個月日子除七的餘數是: 3, 0, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3. 現在想0-6﹐且先不問為何一月是6﹐但6+3日(餘數)﹐便是: 6﹐0﹐1﹐(2)﹐由於二月能整除因此三月的第一日也會和二月第一日落在同一個星期天。三月後﹐2+3日= 2﹐3﹐4﹐(5)﹐ 四月後: 5+2日= 5﹐6﹐(0)﹐五月+3: 0﹐1﹐2﹐(3)...如此類推。
至於日﹐也不用解釋了罷! 以今年為例﹐1月1是星期一﹐年碼+月碼+日碼=(1+6+1)/7=1. 月份第一個數字是6﹐就是要來adjust加完年數後能整除﹐其實如過不是6,也可set過一系列的月數﹐又重新set過年數﹐還能得到同樣效果。第一天由於剛是星期一﹐既可循公式計今天是星期幾:(1+5+11)/7=3﹐甚至既知一月一是星期一﹐月碼已知6=1﹐那麼七月的月碼既是5﹐七月一便會是早一天 = 星期日(0) + 日子餘數11/7=1...(3). 也會有相同答案。
潤年怎計呢? 4除得盡的﹐但又不是100隨得盡的﹐便是潤年。能給400除得盡又是例外﹐因此1900不是﹐但2000是﹔2100不是﹐但2400是。
嘻﹐明白歸明白﹐我卻懶得記這堆數字﹐要扮天才不如看多本書。
Posted by 道士 at 7/11/2007 09:35:00 AM
1 comments:
zostrianos said...
謝謝你的解釋。我本來還以為有一複雜公式，原來沒有。但閏年的一、二月密碼要減一，因為年碼要在三月才生效，故頭兩個月碼便要減去一日。另外，「且先不問為何一月是6」，我想6是由2000年1月1日的星期數來決定的，那天該是星期六:
6-0(year)-1(day)=5(month code)
但2000是閏年，故平年的月碼要加一，即6。
7/11/2007 11:38:00 AM
名字與尊稱(及其他)
標籤:
正音正字,
mf
近日在敝blog提到吳牛仔先生，本來他的名字很鄉土、很草根味兒，是個基層市民，沒必要這樣尊稱。可是大概因為我很敬重他為屏風樓宇問題為民請命(當然，你也可以說他是政黨和非政府組織的工具)，我才特別尊稱他為「先生」。想到我一位朋友，是必須尊稱為「梁國基先生」的。雖然他本人是expect不用尊稱的，只是某些原因我在所有文章都稱他為Stephen(梁國基先生)(當然，口頭上是喊Stephen的)。既尊重他的意願，也免順得哥情失嫂意。
我曾想過陳水扁的「水扁」是什麼意思呢？據說是一位尼姑給他取的。原來他的名字其實就是扁，所以他常自稱「阿扁」；只因他五行欠水，才取了「水扁」這個名字。或許中外的語言不同，英文的名字什麼Sam呀Paul呀，你單單喊出來不會很突兀。可是在廣東話卻得稱為「阿Sam」「阿Paul」之類，「吳牛仔」、「陳水扁」、「徐小鳳」、「鄧亞萍」這些名字也一樣，「仔」、「水」、「小」、「亞」(或阿)之類其實可以說是名字的附加部份。
當然上面說的都是正式的名字，有些人有正名，可是平日為了親切或簡便，也會把這些名字加這些上附加部份。比方劉德華就是華仔、司徒華是華叔、叫什麼成的就叫阿成、成哥、叫Debbie的就叫小Bi之類。美國奇幻小說作家羅蘋．荷布被書迷稱為「羅蘋大人」(未知其出處)，連一位替她翻譯小說的朋友也被稱為「xx大人」。我甚至見過「羅蘋大大」的用法，當我第一次看到「大大」居然還以為是「太太」(口服液？！)。不過，我想我還是不要管她叫「xx大人」了。因為我想起了包大人，當然她不會把我狗頭鍘侍候的。
有一個叫「君」的稱呼，據說是男女通用的，可不可以自稱待考。可是我絕少稱呼女孩子做「x君」的，還有一些人的名字就叫什麼君，比方陳日君、鄧麗君等，所以我很少稱呼別人是「X君」。我以前一位朋友總管男的叫什麼「兄」，結果一段時間我也把一些女性朋友稱為「XX姐」。一個有趣的例子，我曾見過本blog的倉海君被稱為「倉海先生」，或許在我心目中「倉海君」是一個整體，不能隨便亂拆。最後，我是不要求大家尊稱的。
看到大國崛起，狄娜她念錯了一個字。韓趙魏楚燕齊的燕不是念燕子的燕，是「煙」呀！還有什麼「南蠻北夷」，是「東夷南蠻西戎北狄」喔。什麼卡蒙斯的《葡萄牙人之歌》呀，是賈梅士的《葡國魂》。雖然原則上內地的譯法更符合原音(Luis de vaz Camoes)原意(Os Lusiadas，模仿伊利亞德[Iliad]的構詞法，Iliad是伊利昂之歌之意；Lusiad[英語形式]就是Lusitania[葡萄牙的舊稱]之歌啦)，可是澳門是這麼譯的啊。錯別字一個，大洋洲誤作大洋「州」。道士兄之言我亦有所感，有空作個靚夢甚佳。
那一些是風聲的呼喊？
那一天在草地裹奔跑？
風吹過 搖動夢中的歌，
百萬人期待，讓勇敢遙望著遠山。
你在揮手，握緊每對手
夢想 尋獲自由！
自由的夢 Irene及歌者合唱團
淺談二胡和小提琴的基本分別
標籤:
中國音樂,
hystericireul
前言
早前林忌討論事件後倉海君提議做一個中國文化特輯，本來轟然叫好，但是後來電腦出了問題，原本的文章也消失了。又因事忙久未重新寫有關題目。原本便沒有想過一次過寫中樂，不如採取類似笛記的形式，每次寫一點點，逐漸表達我的中樂觀也許更好。
正文
原本二胡和小提琴各有不同的發展源起，音樂風格。但是兩者都是擦弦發聲的樂器，也就難免經常給人拿來比較了。尤其是中樂現在走在交響化的路上，小提琴在傳統西樂團中的角色套在中樂團中便自然由二胡來擔當了。
演奏二胡時胡琴架放在大腿近恥骨處，順著人體大腿盡頭的肌理而稍微斜放，相對小提琴架在肩頸之間，二胡的演奏姿勢相對是比較含蓄一點的，也因此相比小提琴聲音比較難傳出來。
二胡的共鳴箱在樂器的底部，是小小的一個六角形或八角形（也有扁八角、圓形等制式）木箱，外蒙蛇皮。小小的共鳴箱，令二胡的音色含蓄內斂。小提琴的音箱整個都用木造，佔整件樂器總長一半以上。共鳴箱的大小直接影響樂器的音量，因此小提琴的音量必然比二胡大。
二胡的音色靈魂在蒙上的那塊蟒蛇皮，也是這塊蛇皮令二胡的音色如泣似訴，感情洋溢。但是蛇皮本身是有機物質，隨著時間會腐朽。也因此我們只會看見有達幾百年歷史的古小提琴名小提琴仍能叫演奏家趨之若鶩，但不會找得到一個古胡琴仍能操作無誤，照拉如儀的。
蟒蛇皮很容易受濕度、溫度等的影響，只需幾十年時間便會令蛇皮鬆馳、腐壞變質，要重新蒙上新蛇皮。而蒙上新蛇皮就像Format了電腦一樣，一切從頭開始，音色音質等也再也不是原本那個二胡。也因此舊二胡和「好二胡」並沒有必然的關係。
二胡的蛇皮蒙在音箱上，每個角每個邊承受的拉力必須小心計算過，受力平均才可令音色純淨。然而即使出廠時拉力均等，蛇皮卻很易受環境而改變狀態，令音色失真。
碼仔：小提琴的碼仔體積較大，立在木製的音箱上不易走位，容易決定四弦的適當張力，令琴弦更穩定，也容易計算琴弦應有的粗幼、材料、張力。二胡的碼仔極小，放在蛇皮上，蛇皮各種不穩定的情況也就更易令碼仔受影響，直接影響琴弦的穩定性、音准和音色。碼仔擺放的位置稍有不慎，如碼仔與琴弦不是成九十度角，令兩條弦弦長不一，便會直接影響各把位的指距，內外弦指距不一便會直接導致音准不良。
二胡沒有面板，按琴弦時便會令弦受較大的改變，從而令音準也容易改變，不像小提琴一樣穩定。而二胡的壓揉也是基於這特性而出現的。
但由於二胡的弦線受的限制較小，因此即使微小如推拉弓的力度稍強也可以令音準改變。二胡在改革上各種為難之處，是因為各種導致二胡「比下去」的「缺點」其實正是二胡的特色，某程度上反而是優點。蛇皮令二胡音色獨特，沒有面板令二胡的音準變化較自由較大。
二胡的弓夾在兩根弦線之間，在世界上所有擦弦樂器中可謂極少見。也因此弓的自由度相對很小，在二胡上要做出如小提琴的跳弓，難度是平白添了十分。
說了這麼久，是不是代表二胡給小提琴比下去呢？不是的。二胡設計上的局限正令二胡可以別具特色和韻味，反而更成為可以打動人心的聲音。中樂也往往如此，設計上留下很多空白，而這些空白便得靠演奏者去填補。下次再談二胡的音樂價值。
妖! d爛文廢話死晒去邊呀, 成班叻仔中晒暑呀0下?
No classics, memos will do
標籤:
文化討論,
普通讀者,
Zostrianos
According to a survey conducted by the Faculty of Education of HKU, Hong Kong’s proportion of students who would read for their own pleasure outside school is the lowest in the world: only 20% of students have the daily habit of reading for pleasure in Hong Kong, compared with a global average of 40%. Another survey indicates that most Hong Kong students spend less than 30 minutes on reading every day, and what they read are mostly comics, jokes, and leisure readings of low literary value. To further clarify the reading habit of Hong Kong adolescents, I shall cite the results of one more survey. Conducted by Breakthrough Organization from January to March in 2007, this latest survey shows that 75.9 % of readings among the youth of Hong Kong belong to fiction and prose, and only 4.9% of the youth have ever read books about society, culture and politics.
While the above figures tell some plain facts concerning the reading habit of our young people, what I shall say below may shed some light on the overall reading taste of Hong Kong citizens, and at the same time reveal the somewhat tragic and long-neglected career of some respectable independent bookshop owners. I was told personally, to my utmost surprise, by the owner of a ‘second floor bookshop’ in Mong Kok that, over the past few decades, the number of regular clients of New Asia(新亞書店), almost the only local bookshop that still sells quality second-hand books of literature, history and philosophy, has never exceeded 100, which more or less reflects that only an infinitesimal, and even shameful, proportion of the literate population in Hong Kong love humanities.
Why read?
Hong Kong students, nay, Hong Kong people, have long been criticized as lacking in culture (in the sense of a refined understanding and appreciation of liberal arts), and preferring shopping and entertainment to reading. But in order to maintain a competitive edge in this knowledge-based world, good skills of reading and wide horizons embracing diverse aspects of culture seem to be indispensable. Thus comes the education reform, and in this case, particularly ‘Reading to Learn’(one of the four key tasks in Hong Kong’s curriculum reform), to deal with the problem. Let us now examine, from the point of view of the education reformers, why reading ought to be promoted.
According to a letter by Mrs. Fanny Law, former Permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower Bureau, the promotion of a reading culture in school can address two of the major concerns in education, namely, ‘language proficiency and learning capacity’. A document entitled Learning to Learn - The Way Forward in Curriculum, published in 2001, also contains some ‘key messages about reading’ from the Curriculum Development Council. It is said that reading is not just for the improvement of language proficiency, but serves many other important purposes, which add value to the quality of our life, including reading for interest, appreciation, enrichment of knowledge and experience. On the website of the Education Bureau, a teaching resource package is offered to help teachers implement ‘Reading to Learn’ at school. In this package, the manifold purposes of reading are stated clearly. Apart from improving language proficiency, as repeatedly mentioned above, reading also serves other purposes like locating information, understanding instructions to perform certain tasks in our daily life, keeping in touch with friends through correspondence, reading for leisure and enjoyment, and developing our powers of imagination, creativity and appreciation.
To these purposes I am not inclined to object, for they are all beneficial in themselves. And yet, I cannot help wondering if, with ONLY these purposes in mind, we have done full justice to reading, a praxis so crucial to the construction of knowledge, the cultivation of virtue, the flourishing of life, and the quest for wisdom. All the purposes of reading set out by the official documents of the education reform not only strike a rich vein of pragmatism, but also betray philistinism: they seem to fit in better with the curriculum of a training program that prepares students for work than with that of primary and secondary schools, where students are more reasonably supposed to learn how to live as good and rational persons, for whom art and literature may hold greater appeal than money and clothes, than only to acquire such skills as necessary for being competent employees in a corporation, as if they were at school only to get themselves well-equipped for ‘the road to serfdom’ lying ahead. Consider how exceedingly strange it is to include ‘understanding instructions to perform certain tasks in our daily life’ as a purpose of reading, while leaving out, deliberately or not, the more noble ones like improving our moral virtue or looking for wisdom that helps us live better. But even these latter ones, though far more worthy to be set forth by any sane educators, are not the ultimate purpose peculiar to reading: rather, we should read for and only for ourselves in the sense that by experiencing vicariously the life and thoughts of others we augment considerably our inner self.
True, reading may well improve language proficiency, and serve many other practical purposes; yet reading, while incorporated in the school curriculum, should not be taken simply as a tool for achieving these worldly ends. Instead of just rendering some ‘useful’ information accessible, and ‘practical’ training available, to students, genuine education should rather inspire them with an ardent and noble passion for truth, virtue, and wisdom. Though it must be admitted that, to set forth these apparently high-flown ideals, I may be suspected of indulging in empty rhetoric, yet, caught in the dilemma of two evils, I would unhesitatingly put higher emphasis on such ideals as pertaining to life as a whole than on those instrumental values that would have more appropriately been attached to vocational training than to education proper, since an educational system that does not aim at lifting students, both intellectually and morally, to a higher plane of existence, and dispersing, so to speak, the mist of ignorance and folly, cannot produce any mental disposition than that of blind obedience to, even bogus, authority, and benumbed acceptance of recurrent injustices, and on this account the system can no longer deserve to be called ‘educational’.
If reading can serve some more elevated purposes, why keep the teachers from knowing them? There might be two reasons. First, I doubt if it is to instill into the students some false conception of reading, owing to which they would never take care to seek enlightenment, instead of entertainment, from books, nor could they, being unaware of the intellectual hierarchy of texts (upon which I shall enlarge in the next part), know how to reach for the really great authors. In this manner, reading is so debased by our education that no students, as long as their intellectual growth is concerned, can truly benefit from it. But this is not entirely undesirable. Quite the contrary: the ruling class, including the business tycoons, would be happy with a multitude of non-reading subjects. A few steps of reasoning suffice to explain: the less they read, the less they think; the less they think, the easier they are manipulated. QED.
Second, if the vulgarization of reading is not intended, presumably for the convenience of control, by those who draw up the educational scheme, they must be ignorant themselves of the more elevated purposes of reading. I would therefore suggest that they, the education officials, make no haste to teach others, until they are properly taught. After all, in a mercantile sort of place like Hong Kong, where the thirst for interests always supersedes the reverence for learning, we must be cautious enough to take the proclaimed objective of any government project, be it educational or cultural, with a pinch of salt.
We should also note that the documents cited supra are marked by anti-intellectualism and philistinism. For instance, do we need any educators to tell us the reason why we read, trivial as it is, is to ‘keep in touch with friends through correspondence’? This is as absurd and anti-intellectual as to ‘teach’ someone that caviar can in fact be used very effectively to feed the swine. As to philistinism, nearly all the purposes of reading given above can easily boil down to the fulfillment of the conditions that guarantee students’ competence in their future work, but alas, such qualities as are more worthy of liberal education, namely wisdom, virtue, and a keen aesthetic sense, are consigned to the limbo of oblivion. For me, a passionate reader for more than twenty years, the prime reason why we should read is not as practical as the education officials promote, nor is the effect of reading as measurable and palpable as they intend. We read, I would say, primarily because we need books, immortal embodiment of human nature, to understand ourselves, thereby learning to live better. To conclude my critique hitherto, I would like to quote Flaubert's remark on the art of reading: ‘Do not read, as children do, to amuse yourself, or like the ambitious, for the purpose of instruction. No, read in order to live.’ What a pity that the precepts of our officials fall either into the category of ‘childish reading’ or that of the ambitious one.
Major policy on the reading culture in school
As I have remarked supra, our education officials think that reading should be promoted, by and large, for the sake of language proficiency, and learning capacity related to practical and social purposes. It follows that reading is just as functional and instrumental as any other teaching kits. No doubt we cannot expect, while our teachers coldly treat books as some inanimate tools, that their students would love books as affectionately as their friends, or pay them the due respect that they would to their mentors. Reading being instrumental to some practical ends, the way it is promoted in school can only be no less target-oriented. And no less futile, I should say, so far as reading’s lifelong impact upon the students is concerned. The EMB (now the Education Bureau) documents have provided schools with ample suggestions and guidelines on the implementation of ‘Reading to Learn’, of which I shall review some.
To begin with, let us examine the reading materials. It is suggested that students’ reading habit not be confined to literary works; that they read a wide variety of text-types such as newspapers, magazines, and non-printed materials from the web and CD-ROMs to keep themselves updated on current affairs and newest information; and that they not omit to read even maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks and charts so as to ‘cope better in their daily life’, and also memos, reports, and speeches ‘for further study and work’!(Myths & Principles) Curiously, while we all concern ourselves with HOW MUCH we ought to read, as if reading many books, be they classics or bestsellers, could infallibly make us wise, nobody seems to care about WHAT to read. After all, reading rubbish in quantity cannot turn us any wiser or more knowledgeable, just like owning a kiln of bricks does not necessarily make one a mason.
For clarity’s sake, let me enumerate once again the reading materials proposed by our most scrupulous education officials: newspapers, magazines, websites, CD-ROMs, maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, reports and speeches. We can easily imagine students possessing such ‘reading skills’ will be so much grist to the mill of Hong Kong’s employers, particularly those in the business sector. Strange to say, instead of motivating students to read for their benefit first-rate literary works which, as the findings of a survey show (see supra), they rarely read, our education officials choose either to encourage the students to read what they, in effect, already read in abundance on their own initiative (magazines, websites, for instance), or to urge upon them readings of little, if any, worth, among which we can name maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, and reports. Among the vast treasure of human culture, are these the most valuable things that teachers ought to recommend their students to read? Is it still education, be it good or bad, to tell the youth to spend their precious time in vain on such readings, while life is short? I would let you answer at your discretion. Not exactly rocket science.
Remember, practical knowledge of daily skills and sufficient awareness of current events are good only in the sense that we are enabled by them to get on with the world, but so far as getting on with ourselves is concerned, they are of no avail at all. There cannot be any education proper if what the teachers aim at imparting is only useful skills of daily life, but not the way to make sense of life. To be honest, I dare not think of what kind of society I will be living in, surrounded by fools bred among nothing but newspapers, magazines, websites, CD-ROMs, maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, reports, and speeches. Hereto I want to add but one more remark: it is indeed superfluous, or even somewhat malevolent, to warn students against reading too many ‘literary works’, while actually they are to busy themselves reading rubbish all the time.
Secondly, let us consider the teaching of reading skills. The resource package offered by the Education Bureau advises that essential reading strategies and skills (skimming and scanning, for instance) should be taught along with word identification. These skills include strategies of predicting, confirming, monitoring, reflecting and evaluating. As tools for comprehension, they are fine. But to say that these skills are fine is one thing, it is, nevertheless, quite another to advise them to be taught. The education officials, I would say, are just no less mistaken and misleading as regards WHAT to read than HOW to read. After leafing through nearly all the documents concerning ‘Reading to Learn’ available on the Web, I have not yet come across a single line that tells how to distinguish classics from rubbish, nor have I learnt even some vague idea about how to read well. The officials seem to care so little about the quality of reading materials that it suffices for their clear conscience to merely direct students to various sources of text types, in spite of the fact that, among what they put at the disposal of students, hardly anything is worthy to be read. As regards reading skills, so much the worse. In the light of what the officials have proposed to teach, I believe that they have confounded the elementary instruction of reading, which it is groundless to single out for special treatment on the teachers’ part, with the more valuable teaching of reading well, which is as yet neglected by our educators. In other words, the officials are as much unaware of the profound difference between reading and reading well as between good and bad books.
It is indeed questionable whether the skills as mentioned in the documents should be taught in school. If so, to what good? Drawing upon my own experience, I find the teaching of these reading skills quite unnecessary for students overall. The fact is that many children of normal intelligence can, in due course, develop these elementary skills independently and spontaneously, just as I did while a child, provided that they are intrinsically motivated to read (with which I shall deal shortly afterwards). And for those more advanced in school level, the recommendable reading skills should not be such as only to help students read fluently business letters or efficiently cull information from lengthy texts, which has been the sole concern of teachers and students for decades in Hong Kong. Ideally speaking, it is the art, not techniques, of reading that teachers should impart to the senior students. By ‘the art of reading’, I mean the habitual exercise of our mind to make critical responses to a text, to appreciate its intellectual and aesthetic values, and, most important of all, to relate the text, however long ago it was written, and however distant is the place where it was composed, to our present life so as to establish continuity with the past and the otherness. In so doing, we succeed in elevating ourselves to a higher and broader level of experience, and laying open, as it were, the way back to Paradise, having drawn ourselves out from the status quo of transient and limited being. Such is the art of reading that can give full play to educatio, the Latin word from which ‘education’ derives, and which, in its most literal sense, signifies the action of ‘drawing out’.
Thirdly, let us deal with the method of motivation our education officials suggest. Teachers are told that all students, whether they be interested in reading or not, need to be motivated in two ways: at the outset, ‘by material rewards like prizes, certificates, etc’, and afterwards by creating ‘opportunities for students to enjoy reading and demonstrate their achievements in reading’ in order to secure intrinsic motivation. These strategies can be exemplified by the so-called reading scheme (like ‘Best Reader of the Year’) which usually awards to students, who have read a certain number of books within a certain period of time, something like certificates and prizes (corresponding to the first type of bait, namely material rewards), and which also requires students to produce book reports or create reading profiles containing such tasks as oral presentations, story re-telling, role-play, model-making, picture drawing, etc. (corresponding to the second type of bait, i.e., demonstration of their achievements) Now we should first ask: are the guidelines given above really helpful in motivating students to read? The answer is affirmative according to a survey conducted in 2001 by the Education Department on the reading habits of students. The findings reveal that in primary schools, students appear to spend more time on reading in those schools that offer awards to encourage reading.
Nevertheless, I invite you to look deeper into the long-term consequences behind the apparent success about which our educators are often too ready to be complacent. This is mere common sense that whatever habit, especially the mental one, we acquire in childhood will be deep-seated in our nature for a lifetime. Seeing that Hong Kong students have been enticed into reading since childhood by certificates, prizes, and ‘demonstration of achievements’, which must depend on others’ approbation and recognition, alas, they will be led astray for ever without running across the real nature of reading: solitude, independence and silence. Let us hear what the gurus of reading say: for Harold Bloom, reading is rather ‘a solitary praxis’ than ‘an educational enterprise’, and ‘it matters, if individuals are to retain any capacity to form their own judgments and opinions, that they continue to read for themselves’ ; in The Uncommon Reader, George Steiner, one of the greatest literary critics of our time, tells us that ‘genuine reading demands silence’. What is the point of quoting them? Here are the illuminating opinions on reading penned by two of the greatest readers in our time, and it is only by contrasting their opinions with our education officials’ that we can debunk the prevalent creed of reading in Hong Kong.
I have to side with the gurus to argue that reading is essentially a solitary act in which we have to learn how to think (for this, silence is a prerequisite) and judge independently; it is therefore quite ironic to promote reading, which consists in solitude and independence, by means of extrinsic motivation and external approbation. In spite of the temporary success concerning the reading habit of primary school students, as reported above, the general lack of interest in serious reading among the Hong Kong populace, I believe, must partly be attributed to the inadequate use of enticements in school, and partly to the prevailing apathy towards books among the teachers themselves. In regard to the former, students ‘trained’ to read for material rewards would not care for books anymore when they get nothing in return, or simply outlive the childish desire for ‘useless’ certificates. With respect to the latter, the Education Reform is once more to blame, for the teachers who, apart from their routine work, have to put in extra time to develop cross-curricular activities or a school-based curriculum, as the reform requires, are already so overworked as to be deprived of all leisure and strength that could have otherwise been devoted to reading. Is it reasonable to expect that teachers, in the circumstances, can still keep on reading and sharing that mythical ‘joy of learning’ with students?
Analogous to virtue, reading is neither to be taught by words, nor by enticement, but by deeds. Socrates, when asked to declare his notions of justice, replies, ‘Haven’t you noticed that I never cease to declare my notions of what is just? I declare them by my deeds, anyhow, if not by my words. Don’t you think that deeds are better evidence than words?’ In my opinion, the only justifiable motivation for students to read is the unaffected and insatiable passion, on the part of teachers, for books, and good books alone, not whatever rubbish one happens to find in the newspaper columns or magazines. Arguably, the present practice of reading, marked by extrinsic motivation and pragmatic ends, will bear far less fruit in long term than when students are moved to read for themselves by teachers’ genuine love of books, though material rewards and show of achievements may produce some immediate and observable success. But if lifelong education is to be sustained, if the objectives of our education can be taken at their face value, and if educators ought not to strive for measurable results of which they can readily boast, I must call to your attention that the success our schools have hitherto achieved is somewhat overstated.
Examples of school-based practices
From all these false conceptions of reading, it naturally results that the grand educational project our officials have formulated cannot yield much healthy fruit. In this part we will briefly review three examples of school-based practices found in the resource package of the Education Bureau website, presumably held to be the best models on which schools can plan the implementation of ‘Reading to Learn’. Instead of commenting on the three projects separately, I shall make some overall remarks after describing them all in broad outline.
The first project, entitled ‘Inter-disciplinary Studies’ (Levels: S1-S3), seems to be designed by the education officials themselves, for the source is left unmentioned. It is essentially divided in four parts: first, in two English lessons allocated for this reading program, students are asked to read some materials and perform the tasks designed by various subject teachers; second, reading files are kept to review the progress; third, the reading skills learnt in these two lessons are to be assessed formally in the examination; fourth, students are required to read books chosen from a list of non-fiction graded readers. The second project , entitled ‘Census 2001’ (Levels: S1-S7), comes from Buddhist Ho Nam Kam College. The objective of this project is to promote civic education through reading, and the reading materials are selected from various websites related to population census. The task is no more than discussion and doing a worksheet with nine simple questions. The last example is called ‘Reading Award Scheme’ (Levels: S1-S4, S6), from HKTA The Yuen Yuen Institute No.2 Secondary School: students are here required to read 10-11 books at minimum; book reports are to be submitted afterwards and their reading ‘achievements’ are recorded in the Student Handbooks.
Having thus outlined the three projects, I am now to subject them to a critical review. So obvious is their unanimous stress on the demonstration of tangible products (such as records and worksheets), as well as their shared indifference to the choice of reading materials, that we should not fail to note that the three examples given above are perfectly in line with the mind-set, as discussed previously, of the education officials themselves. Doing tasks for different subjects, filling in worksheets after browsing through this website or that, and handing in book reports to the school, are nothing new under the sun. What is the point of highlighting ‘Reading to Learn’ then? Even back to a thousand years ago, at the time of the Northern Song dynasty, did a student not read likewise, without the prompting of the ‘key task’, in order to learn? So are we being told that this is what ‘Reading to Learn’ can achieve at its best? Well, I simply do not think the result is impressive enough to be proud of: reports, worksheets, records, etc, continue to dominate, nay, disrupt in the field of reading, while reading itself is forgotten. Can any of the officials in charge of the Education Reform, with all sincerity, say that students, having these flat and insipid projects thrust upon them, will take to reading afterwards? And even if they do, what are they likely to read? Websites? Newspapers? Magazines? Bestsellers?
But upon our inspection, the Education Reform, in so far as reading is concerned, seems to attend less to the interests of students than those of employers: instead of curbing cultural vandalism, it takes further steps with the crowd to reinforce it so much so that classics are leveled down to go hand in hand with newspapers, yearbooks, reports, statistics, charts, and memos, most of which being commercial stuff of no intrinsic value. Students are exhorted and trained to read for purposes more compatible with the need of the Hong Kong business sector than that of their own souls. Hardly convinced of the merit of reading in this way, schools only go through the motion of following the trend set by the officials, and keep on designing perfunctory school-based projects to little avail. Whether our students are thus manipulated to satisfy the needs of a certain influential social stratum, I cannot say for certain, but the making of a competent employee for a corporation, I firmly believe, more often than not proves to be the undoing of an authentic reader for himself.
Dedicated to Sydney
Je ne cherche aux livres qu’à m’y donner du plaisir par un honneste amusement: ou si j’estudie, je n’y cherche que la science, qui traicte de la connoissance de moy-mesmes, et qui m’instruise à bien mourir et à bien vivre.－－ Montaigne
According to a survey conducted by the Faculty of Education of HKU, Hong Kong’s proportion of students who would read for their own pleasure outside school is the lowest in the world: only 20% of students have the daily habit of reading for pleasure in Hong Kong, compared with a global average of 40%. Another survey indicates that most Hong Kong students spend less than 30 minutes on reading every day, and what they read are mostly comics, jokes, and leisure readings of low literary value. To further clarify the reading habit of Hong Kong adolescents, I shall cite the results of one more survey. Conducted by Breakthrough Organization from January to March in 2007, this latest survey shows that 75.9 % of readings among the youth of Hong Kong belong to fiction and prose, and only 4.9% of the youth have ever read books about society, culture and politics.
While the above figures tell some plain facts concerning the reading habit of our young people, what I shall say below may shed some light on the overall reading taste of Hong Kong citizens, and at the same time reveal the somewhat tragic and long-neglected career of some respectable independent bookshop owners. I was told personally, to my utmost surprise, by the owner of a ‘second floor bookshop’ in Mong Kok that, over the past few decades, the number of regular clients of New Asia(新亞書店), almost the only local bookshop that still sells quality second-hand books of literature, history and philosophy, has never exceeded 100, which more or less reflects that only an infinitesimal, and even shameful, proportion of the literate population in Hong Kong love humanities.
Why read?
Hong Kong students, nay, Hong Kong people, have long been criticized as lacking in culture (in the sense of a refined understanding and appreciation of liberal arts), and preferring shopping and entertainment to reading. But in order to maintain a competitive edge in this knowledge-based world, good skills of reading and wide horizons embracing diverse aspects of culture seem to be indispensable. Thus comes the education reform, and in this case, particularly ‘Reading to Learn’(one of the four key tasks in Hong Kong’s curriculum reform), to deal with the problem. Let us now examine, from the point of view of the education reformers, why reading ought to be promoted.
According to a letter by Mrs. Fanny Law, former Permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower Bureau, the promotion of a reading culture in school can address two of the major concerns in education, namely, ‘language proficiency and learning capacity’. A document entitled Learning to Learn - The Way Forward in Curriculum, published in 2001, also contains some ‘key messages about reading’ from the Curriculum Development Council. It is said that reading is not just for the improvement of language proficiency, but serves many other important purposes, which add value to the quality of our life, including reading for interest, appreciation, enrichment of knowledge and experience. On the website of the Education Bureau, a teaching resource package is offered to help teachers implement ‘Reading to Learn’ at school. In this package, the manifold purposes of reading are stated clearly. Apart from improving language proficiency, as repeatedly mentioned above, reading also serves other purposes like locating information, understanding instructions to perform certain tasks in our daily life, keeping in touch with friends through correspondence, reading for leisure and enjoyment, and developing our powers of imagination, creativity and appreciation.
To these purposes I am not inclined to object, for they are all beneficial in themselves. And yet, I cannot help wondering if, with ONLY these purposes in mind, we have done full justice to reading, a praxis so crucial to the construction of knowledge, the cultivation of virtue, the flourishing of life, and the quest for wisdom. All the purposes of reading set out by the official documents of the education reform not only strike a rich vein of pragmatism, but also betray philistinism: they seem to fit in better with the curriculum of a training program that prepares students for work than with that of primary and secondary schools, where students are more reasonably supposed to learn how to live as good and rational persons, for whom art and literature may hold greater appeal than money and clothes, than only to acquire such skills as necessary for being competent employees in a corporation, as if they were at school only to get themselves well-equipped for ‘the road to serfdom’ lying ahead. Consider how exceedingly strange it is to include ‘understanding instructions to perform certain tasks in our daily life’ as a purpose of reading, while leaving out, deliberately or not, the more noble ones like improving our moral virtue or looking for wisdom that helps us live better. But even these latter ones, though far more worthy to be set forth by any sane educators, are not the ultimate purpose peculiar to reading: rather, we should read for and only for ourselves in the sense that by experiencing vicariously the life and thoughts of others we augment considerably our inner self.
True, reading may well improve language proficiency, and serve many other practical purposes; yet reading, while incorporated in the school curriculum, should not be taken simply as a tool for achieving these worldly ends. Instead of just rendering some ‘useful’ information accessible, and ‘practical’ training available, to students, genuine education should rather inspire them with an ardent and noble passion for truth, virtue, and wisdom. Though it must be admitted that, to set forth these apparently high-flown ideals, I may be suspected of indulging in empty rhetoric, yet, caught in the dilemma of two evils, I would unhesitatingly put higher emphasis on such ideals as pertaining to life as a whole than on those instrumental values that would have more appropriately been attached to vocational training than to education proper, since an educational system that does not aim at lifting students, both intellectually and morally, to a higher plane of existence, and dispersing, so to speak, the mist of ignorance and folly, cannot produce any mental disposition than that of blind obedience to, even bogus, authority, and benumbed acceptance of recurrent injustices, and on this account the system can no longer deserve to be called ‘educational’.
If reading can serve some more elevated purposes, why keep the teachers from knowing them? There might be two reasons. First, I doubt if it is to instill into the students some false conception of reading, owing to which they would never take care to seek enlightenment, instead of entertainment, from books, nor could they, being unaware of the intellectual hierarchy of texts (upon which I shall enlarge in the next part), know how to reach for the really great authors. In this manner, reading is so debased by our education that no students, as long as their intellectual growth is concerned, can truly benefit from it. But this is not entirely undesirable. Quite the contrary: the ruling class, including the business tycoons, would be happy with a multitude of non-reading subjects. A few steps of reasoning suffice to explain: the less they read, the less they think; the less they think, the easier they are manipulated. QED.
Second, if the vulgarization of reading is not intended, presumably for the convenience of control, by those who draw up the educational scheme, they must be ignorant themselves of the more elevated purposes of reading. I would therefore suggest that they, the education officials, make no haste to teach others, until they are properly taught. After all, in a mercantile sort of place like Hong Kong, where the thirst for interests always supersedes the reverence for learning, we must be cautious enough to take the proclaimed objective of any government project, be it educational or cultural, with a pinch of salt.
We should also note that the documents cited supra are marked by anti-intellectualism and philistinism. For instance, do we need any educators to tell us the reason why we read, trivial as it is, is to ‘keep in touch with friends through correspondence’? This is as absurd and anti-intellectual as to ‘teach’ someone that caviar can in fact be used very effectively to feed the swine. As to philistinism, nearly all the purposes of reading given above can easily boil down to the fulfillment of the conditions that guarantee students’ competence in their future work, but alas, such qualities as are more worthy of liberal education, namely wisdom, virtue, and a keen aesthetic sense, are consigned to the limbo of oblivion. For me, a passionate reader for more than twenty years, the prime reason why we should read is not as practical as the education officials promote, nor is the effect of reading as measurable and palpable as they intend. We read, I would say, primarily because we need books, immortal embodiment of human nature, to understand ourselves, thereby learning to live better. To conclude my critique hitherto, I would like to quote Flaubert's remark on the art of reading: ‘Do not read, as children do, to amuse yourself, or like the ambitious, for the purpose of instruction. No, read in order to live.’ What a pity that the precepts of our officials fall either into the category of ‘childish reading’ or that of the ambitious one.
Major policy on the reading culture in school
As I have remarked supra, our education officials think that reading should be promoted, by and large, for the sake of language proficiency, and learning capacity related to practical and social purposes. It follows that reading is just as functional and instrumental as any other teaching kits. No doubt we cannot expect, while our teachers coldly treat books as some inanimate tools, that their students would love books as affectionately as their friends, or pay them the due respect that they would to their mentors. Reading being instrumental to some practical ends, the way it is promoted in school can only be no less target-oriented. And no less futile, I should say, so far as reading’s lifelong impact upon the students is concerned. The EMB (now the Education Bureau) documents have provided schools with ample suggestions and guidelines on the implementation of ‘Reading to Learn’, of which I shall review some.
To begin with, let us examine the reading materials. It is suggested that students’ reading habit not be confined to literary works; that they read a wide variety of text-types such as newspapers, magazines, and non-printed materials from the web and CD-ROMs to keep themselves updated on current affairs and newest information; and that they not omit to read even maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks and charts so as to ‘cope better in their daily life’, and also memos, reports, and speeches ‘for further study and work’!(Myths & Principles) Curiously, while we all concern ourselves with HOW MUCH we ought to read, as if reading many books, be they classics or bestsellers, could infallibly make us wise, nobody seems to care about WHAT to read. After all, reading rubbish in quantity cannot turn us any wiser or more knowledgeable, just like owning a kiln of bricks does not necessarily make one a mason.
For clarity’s sake, let me enumerate once again the reading materials proposed by our most scrupulous education officials: newspapers, magazines, websites, CD-ROMs, maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, reports and speeches. We can easily imagine students possessing such ‘reading skills’ will be so much grist to the mill of Hong Kong’s employers, particularly those in the business sector. Strange to say, instead of motivating students to read for their benefit first-rate literary works which, as the findings of a survey show (see supra), they rarely read, our education officials choose either to encourage the students to read what they, in effect, already read in abundance on their own initiative (magazines, websites, for instance), or to urge upon them readings of little, if any, worth, among which we can name maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, and reports. Among the vast treasure of human culture, are these the most valuable things that teachers ought to recommend their students to read? Is it still education, be it good or bad, to tell the youth to spend their precious time in vain on such readings, while life is short? I would let you answer at your discretion. Not exactly rocket science.
Remember, practical knowledge of daily skills and sufficient awareness of current events are good only in the sense that we are enabled by them to get on with the world, but so far as getting on with ourselves is concerned, they are of no avail at all. There cannot be any education proper if what the teachers aim at imparting is only useful skills of daily life, but not the way to make sense of life. To be honest, I dare not think of what kind of society I will be living in, surrounded by fools bred among nothing but newspapers, magazines, websites, CD-ROMs, maps, signs, statistics, yearbooks, charts, memos, reports, and speeches. Hereto I want to add but one more remark: it is indeed superfluous, or even somewhat malevolent, to warn students against reading too many ‘literary works’, while actually they are to busy themselves reading rubbish all the time.
Secondly, let us consider the teaching of reading skills. The resource package offered by the Education Bureau advises that essential reading strategies and skills (skimming and scanning, for instance) should be taught along with word identification. These skills include strategies of predicting, confirming, monitoring, reflecting and evaluating. As tools for comprehension, they are fine. But to say that these skills are fine is one thing, it is, nevertheless, quite another to advise them to be taught. The education officials, I would say, are just no less mistaken and misleading as regards WHAT to read than HOW to read. After leafing through nearly all the documents concerning ‘Reading to Learn’ available on the Web, I have not yet come across a single line that tells how to distinguish classics from rubbish, nor have I learnt even some vague idea about how to read well. The officials seem to care so little about the quality of reading materials that it suffices for their clear conscience to merely direct students to various sources of text types, in spite of the fact that, among what they put at the disposal of students, hardly anything is worthy to be read. As regards reading skills, so much the worse. In the light of what the officials have proposed to teach, I believe that they have confounded the elementary instruction of reading, which it is groundless to single out for special treatment on the teachers’ part, with the more valuable teaching of reading well, which is as yet neglected by our educators. In other words, the officials are as much unaware of the profound difference between reading and reading well as between good and bad books.
It is indeed questionable whether the skills as mentioned in the documents should be taught in school. If so, to what good? Drawing upon my own experience, I find the teaching of these reading skills quite unnecessary for students overall. The fact is that many children of normal intelligence can, in due course, develop these elementary skills independently and spontaneously, just as I did while a child, provided that they are intrinsically motivated to read (with which I shall deal shortly afterwards). And for those more advanced in school level, the recommendable reading skills should not be such as only to help students read fluently business letters or efficiently cull information from lengthy texts, which has been the sole concern of teachers and students for decades in Hong Kong. Ideally speaking, it is the art, not techniques, of reading that teachers should impart to the senior students. By ‘the art of reading’, I mean the habitual exercise of our mind to make critical responses to a text, to appreciate its intellectual and aesthetic values, and, most important of all, to relate the text, however long ago it was written, and however distant is the place where it was composed, to our present life so as to establish continuity with the past and the otherness. In so doing, we succeed in elevating ourselves to a higher and broader level of experience, and laying open, as it were, the way back to Paradise, having drawn ourselves out from the status quo of transient and limited being. Such is the art of reading that can give full play to educatio, the Latin word from which ‘education’ derives, and which, in its most literal sense, signifies the action of ‘drawing out’.
Thirdly, let us deal with the method of motivation our education officials suggest. Teachers are told that all students, whether they be interested in reading or not, need to be motivated in two ways: at the outset, ‘by material rewards like prizes, certificates, etc’, and afterwards by creating ‘opportunities for students to enjoy reading and demonstrate their achievements in reading’ in order to secure intrinsic motivation. These strategies can be exemplified by the so-called reading scheme (like ‘Best Reader of the Year’) which usually awards to students, who have read a certain number of books within a certain period of time, something like certificates and prizes (corresponding to the first type of bait, namely material rewards), and which also requires students to produce book reports or create reading profiles containing such tasks as oral presentations, story re-telling, role-play, model-making, picture drawing, etc. (corresponding to the second type of bait, i.e., demonstration of their achievements) Now we should first ask: are the guidelines given above really helpful in motivating students to read? The answer is affirmative according to a survey conducted in 2001 by the Education Department on the reading habits of students. The findings reveal that in primary schools, students appear to spend more time on reading in those schools that offer awards to encourage reading.
Nevertheless, I invite you to look deeper into the long-term consequences behind the apparent success about which our educators are often too ready to be complacent. This is mere common sense that whatever habit, especially the mental one, we acquire in childhood will be deep-seated in our nature for a lifetime. Seeing that Hong Kong students have been enticed into reading since childhood by certificates, prizes, and ‘demonstration of achievements’, which must depend on others’ approbation and recognition, alas, they will be led astray for ever without running across the real nature of reading: solitude, independence and silence. Let us hear what the gurus of reading say: for Harold Bloom, reading is rather ‘a solitary praxis’ than ‘an educational enterprise’, and ‘it matters, if individuals are to retain any capacity to form their own judgments and opinions, that they continue to read for themselves’ ; in The Uncommon Reader, George Steiner, one of the greatest literary critics of our time, tells us that ‘genuine reading demands silence’. What is the point of quoting them? Here are the illuminating opinions on reading penned by two of the greatest readers in our time, and it is only by contrasting their opinions with our education officials’ that we can debunk the prevalent creed of reading in Hong Kong.
I have to side with the gurus to argue that reading is essentially a solitary act in which we have to learn how to think (for this, silence is a prerequisite) and judge independently; it is therefore quite ironic to promote reading, which consists in solitude and independence, by means of extrinsic motivation and external approbation. In spite of the temporary success concerning the reading habit of primary school students, as reported above, the general lack of interest in serious reading among the Hong Kong populace, I believe, must partly be attributed to the inadequate use of enticements in school, and partly to the prevailing apathy towards books among the teachers themselves. In regard to the former, students ‘trained’ to read for material rewards would not care for books anymore when they get nothing in return, or simply outlive the childish desire for ‘useless’ certificates. With respect to the latter, the Education Reform is once more to blame, for the teachers who, apart from their routine work, have to put in extra time to develop cross-curricular activities or a school-based curriculum, as the reform requires, are already so overworked as to be deprived of all leisure and strength that could have otherwise been devoted to reading. Is it reasonable to expect that teachers, in the circumstances, can still keep on reading and sharing that mythical ‘joy of learning’ with students?
Analogous to virtue, reading is neither to be taught by words, nor by enticement, but by deeds. Socrates, when asked to declare his notions of justice, replies, ‘Haven’t you noticed that I never cease to declare my notions of what is just? I declare them by my deeds, anyhow, if not by my words. Don’t you think that deeds are better evidence than words?’ In my opinion, the only justifiable motivation for students to read is the unaffected and insatiable passion, on the part of teachers, for books, and good books alone, not whatever rubbish one happens to find in the newspaper columns or magazines. Arguably, the present practice of reading, marked by extrinsic motivation and pragmatic ends, will bear far less fruit in long term than when students are moved to read for themselves by teachers’ genuine love of books, though material rewards and show of achievements may produce some immediate and observable success. But if lifelong education is to be sustained, if the objectives of our education can be taken at their face value, and if educators ought not to strive for measurable results of which they can readily boast, I must call to your attention that the success our schools have hitherto achieved is somewhat overstated.
Examples of school-based practices
From all these false conceptions of reading, it naturally results that the grand educational project our officials have formulated cannot yield much healthy fruit. In this part we will briefly review three examples of school-based practices found in the resource package of the Education Bureau website, presumably held to be the best models on which schools can plan the implementation of ‘Reading to Learn’. Instead of commenting on the three projects separately, I shall make some overall remarks after describing them all in broad outline.
The first project, entitled ‘Inter-disciplinary Studies’ (Levels: S1-S3), seems to be designed by the education officials themselves, for the source is left unmentioned. It is essentially divided in four parts: first, in two English lessons allocated for this reading program, students are asked to read some materials and perform the tasks designed by various subject teachers; second, reading files are kept to review the progress; third, the reading skills learnt in these two lessons are to be assessed formally in the examination; fourth, students are required to read books chosen from a list of non-fiction graded readers. The second project , entitled ‘Census 2001’ (Levels: S1-S7), comes from Buddhist Ho Nam Kam College. The objective of this project is to promote civic education through reading, and the reading materials are selected from various websites related to population census. The task is no more than discussion and doing a worksheet with nine simple questions. The last example is called ‘Reading Award Scheme’ (Levels: S1-S4, S6), from HKTA The Yuen Yuen Institute No.2 Secondary School: students are here required to read 10-11 books at minimum; book reports are to be submitted afterwards and their reading ‘achievements’ are recorded in the Student Handbooks.
Having thus outlined the three projects, I am now to subject them to a critical review. So obvious is their unanimous stress on the demonstration of tangible products (such as records and worksheets), as well as their shared indifference to the choice of reading materials, that we should not fail to note that the three examples given above are perfectly in line with the mind-set, as discussed previously, of the education officials themselves. Doing tasks for different subjects, filling in worksheets after browsing through this website or that, and handing in book reports to the school, are nothing new under the sun. What is the point of highlighting ‘Reading to Learn’ then? Even back to a thousand years ago, at the time of the Northern Song dynasty, did a student not read likewise, without the prompting of the ‘key task’, in order to learn? So are we being told that this is what ‘Reading to Learn’ can achieve at its best? Well, I simply do not think the result is impressive enough to be proud of: reports, worksheets, records, etc, continue to dominate, nay, disrupt in the field of reading, while reading itself is forgotten. Can any of the officials in charge of the Education Reform, with all sincerity, say that students, having these flat and insipid projects thrust upon them, will take to reading afterwards? And even if they do, what are they likely to read? Websites? Newspapers? Magazines? Bestsellers?
* * *
In the light of the observations above, I would conclude this essay, from a rather humanistic perspective, that the practical approach to reading, which it is the ambition of our government to inculcate into students, is generally adopted to the detriment of the traditional art of reading, which consists in the power of appreciation, responsiveness, and penetration. The art, though fondly cherished and vigorously defended by a handful of élite readers, has been quickly losing ground, among the public, to the cheap enjoyment of multimedia and pulp readings. It is therefore the duty of educators to check the growth of intellectual sloth, and the decline of literary taste, in a time when bad books always top the bestseller list, and the memory of classics is gradually obliterated.But upon our inspection, the Education Reform, in so far as reading is concerned, seems to attend less to the interests of students than those of employers: instead of curbing cultural vandalism, it takes further steps with the crowd to reinforce it so much so that classics are leveled down to go hand in hand with newspapers, yearbooks, reports, statistics, charts, and memos, most of which being commercial stuff of no intrinsic value. Students are exhorted and trained to read for purposes more compatible with the need of the Hong Kong business sector than that of their own souls. Hardly convinced of the merit of reading in this way, schools only go through the motion of following the trend set by the officials, and keep on designing perfunctory school-based projects to little avail. Whether our students are thus manipulated to satisfy the needs of a certain influential social stratum, I cannot say for certain, but the making of a competent employee for a corporation, I firmly believe, more often than not proves to be the undoing of an authentic reader for himself.
同學．無我．無為
標籤:
閑人說法
總有這樣的同學，他告訴你他沒有溫習，結果測驗得到90多分。他會把他搜集的notes偷偷藏起。他會借你的report來參考然後抄襲。他hold起圖書館represent要用的書，如果他不夠quota，他會把書藏在其他沒人看的書架上，例如哲學宗教的書架。漸漸朋友們都會發現他的自私，他做的一切都是為了自身的利益。於是朋友們都不再上當，有notes的時候不會借他，有report不會讓他看，有什麼好東西也不會預他的份。
總有這樣的同學，他花時間替你解釋你不明白的地方，他把他補習得到的notes影印給你。你不能報名某個課程時他會替你留位，甚至他會讓出自己的位置給你。漸漸朋友們都會發現他的不計較，於是朋友們有好事和人分享時第一個就是想起他，每位朋友都會把notes印給他，都會和他分享自己的寶藏。
如果你眼中的「我」我範圍只及於你自己，世上就只有你自己一個為你謀利益。如果你眼中沒有「我」，世上的一切都會為你謀利益，因為你的無我，有益於整個世界，整個世界亦因而回饋於你。你不為自己謀利益，而一切利益已經屬於你，這就是太上所說的「無為而無不為」了。
預言詩與事後孔明
標籤:
倉海君,
網友交流
1 July
推天理破玄機
鄭天儀 面對面 信報 p.43 28.06.2007
「預言」是人類永恒的話題，因為科技如何發達，「未來」還是神秘莫測。
要找出未來的懸案，有人會在歷史中找線索，中國預言書《萬年歌》、《襌師詩》、《燒餅歌》等不時成為近代人藉以破解未來的工具，人人都希望手執洞悉天機的水晶球。
行將七十的莫天賜，是藝人莫文蔚的父親。別看他這個中、英混血兒生活西化，說話不時夾雜英文字詞，他卻酷愛中國文化，鑽研中國經典預言古籍《推背圖》逾三十年，費盡思量、錙銖算盡，下月他將第二度推出《推背圖》攻略。
「《推背圖》的圖象就好像一大堆包含圖畫和文字的拼圖案片（Jigsaw puzzle），砌成一幅有意義的歷史圖畫外，還能破解藏在圖文背後的預言真相。」他道。《推背圖》全書共有六十象，其中包括圖、卦、讖文及頌文。第一至三十九象是記載由唐至民國的預言，第四十至六十象是記載民國後的預言。
無出其右
莫天賜的曾外祖父愛收藏中國預言經典，十多年前他開始著書注譯《金批推背圖》，該書在2001年推出，引起不少迴響。基於明末的金聖歎已譯注了前部分，故莫天賜從第四十象起進行譯注《推背圖》蘊藏的「未來密碼」。
他閒來又以《易經》的五行定律為基礎，撰寫《給莫文蔚的健美食譜》的內容，介紹了多種湯、煲、茶、飯、菜的具體做法，並配有相關功效的介紹。
「除了我，我相信世界上無人能破解《推背圖》，所以我寫了《推背圖》後，便沒有人再夠膽再寫了。除非有人抄襲我，否則休想寫得比我更好！坊間所謂能破解《推背圖》的大師，單從圖象抽出一至兩句來便大吹大擂，簡直是貽笑大方。如果這些小輩是大師，我就是神仙！」學者的風範，有時也遮掩不了他的super ego，他直指研究推背圖一定要入準時空，否則，就枉費心機，徒勞無功。
多花六年，莫天賜下月將推出新書《最新編定推背圖》，這是他上一部著作的下集，譯注第四十六至六十象，鋪陳未來世界局勢至公元3000年世界滅亡的大事。最重要是透過第一及第六十象，破解領悟《推背圖》的法門與秘技。
「它有時要你測字，有時要你猜謎，有時更要你引古證今，少一點慧根與悟性，也絕不能參透當中的玄機。」莫天賜形容譯注《推背圖》是個如何艱苦的任務。
莫家戰前家中藏有兩個版本的《推背圖》，後來被日軍連同家中的古錢一併取走了。自小莫媽媽羅惠德便把《推背圖》內容當故事說給莫天賜聽，成為他的啟蒙老師，也是她把祖傳秘訣傳授給莫天賜，才令他得以掌握破解預言的法門。
「記得《工商日報》1937 年刊登一篇乩文，其中包含紅日、白日及五星旗，正好代表日本、國民黨及共產黨，那年共產黨也未決定用五星旗，代表預言成真，那刻心情很特別，頓覺《推背圖》的厲害。」後來重新鑽研《推背圖》，才發現何謂字字玄機。
莫天賜自誇為「世上唯一」，並非他有破解預言的神力，而是他能成功頓悟並掌握解碼的法門。「因為我洞悉了破解的basic principle，所以解碼便能不費吹灰之力。」
最重要慧根
那如何能解開《推背圖》的預言密碼？莫天賜提出了最基本的裝備，就是把數千年的歷史、《辭海》和《說文解字》念到滾瓜爛熟，但最重要是有慧根，把所有複雜及隱而未見的秘密發掘及聯繫上。
篤信道家思想的莫天賜，自言是個多神論者，既信基督又認同佛祖。此外，除了鑽研中國仙乩及預言外，莫天賜也懂得招魂、驅鬼及扶乩等道家法術，均由母親傳授。
莫天賜認為，宇宙中存在不同的鬼神，系統地按地域分布各地。「古代人與神的關係很密切，一國之君每作決定都會先求神問卜，人與神和平共處，神並非要控制人。」
我懷疑，慧根會否令一個人有先知的預測能力呢？
「除了神仙，無人能準確預言未來。但神仙是濟世的，不是下凡來歛財的！」莫天賜所說的歛財者，是他最看不起的坊間風水師。 古代先知輩出，為何近代卻無所出呢？我問。
「《推背圖》是以『三易』（即連山、歸藏和周易）的占卜方法把過去與未來逐一預測出來的。除了《周易》以外，其餘兩易已失傳，故很難將未來預卜出來了。」
至於《推背圖》如此神妙，究竟如何參透其中玄機？莫天賜拿出第四十七象說：「『一言為評』指普通話完全普及中國，中國將發明超級電腦，不出二十年，中國在科技、經濟及軍事方面都會比英美等大國更強勁。」
莫天賜說，《道德經》與《孫子兵法》等哲學書籍，不及《推背圖》實用，他還會透過五行術數等預測時勢，然後作趨吉避凶的部署。
「2001年開始，我一直人買黃金和石油股，當時的中國石油還是一元多（昨收報十一元四角），每黃金也只是二千四百元，如聽我說的人已獲利不少。」他露出滿意的笑容。
本年度最大的謎團，要數中國股市泡沫何時爆破？香港能否獨善其身？他說今年是丁亥年屬火，地支屬水，是水火不容的格局，故今年時勢不利，但他卻沒有預言中國會否有股災。
逢「七」有股災無根據
「那『逢七必有股災』的說法是否有根據呢？」我認真問。
「絕無根據。不過你看，內地人不知股票為何物，便一頭栽進股海，不製造人為災難才怪？」莫天賜認真地說。
《推背圖》第六十象講到世界末日，那是接近公元3000 年，故沒有第六十一象。究竟人類是如何滅亡的呢？
「污染令大氣層消失，所有動運因高溫而熱死。」莫天賜說得不慍不火，恍若在談論某電影的情節。
人為災害，確實比天災更有殺傷力，人類能透過做什麼而避免或延長厄運發生嗎？
「茫茫天數此中求，世道興衰不自由，萬萬千千說不盡，不如推背去歸休。」《推背圖》中預言世界末日的第六十象的頌文是《推背圖》書名的由來，也是莫天賜訪問的結尾答案。
總括莫天賜從破解《推背圖》預言世界將發生的大事 :
2007年 ‧丁亥年屬火，地支屬水，形成水火不容的相剋格局，時勢不利； 相繼出現由食物引發的疾病。
2008年 中國成為奧運會的大贏家
數年內 神州西部（西藏、新彊？）將有大規模騷亂。
10年內 美元將貶值到難以想像的地步
2023-2024年 兩岸終於和平統一，台灣重投中國懷抱。
2030年前後 ‧中國成世界第一強國，更甚於盛漢、盛唐與盛清時期； 南北極冰山因高溫（炎運）而融化，引致災難──日本與美國西部將相繼發生大地震、海嘯與陸沉。
3000年前後 人類滅亡──污染令大氣層消失，雄性動物喪失生產精子的能力，所有動物及人均由複製誕生，最後所有動運因高溫而熱死。
情迷金腰帶
「中國古代有四大美人，歷史就要改寫了，時至今日應該有五位，新增的一位不就是眼前的你。」說起話來認真得像新聞報道員的莫天賜，原來是個情聖，他就是以上述對話打動了「五大美人」委身下嫁，那人就是香港第一代電視人莫何敏儀。
古稀之年，莫天賜滑頭地示範如何打情罵俏時，不遜時下熱血男生，身旁的莫auntie笑得嘴裏差點滲出蜜糖。兩人鶼鰈情深，走過四十載的婚姻，仍然恩愛如昔。
莫天賜出身名門，父親莫理士（Alfred Morris）是香港著名學府英皇書院創校校長，也是聖約翰救傷隊的創辦人。何敏儀大學時期已是個大美人。
你們倆有什麼刻骨銘心的事？我問。
「我跟她由始至終都那麼刻骨銘心！」莫天賜搶白，我跟攝記不由全身發麻。還是莫auntie來打圓場，還告訴了筆者莫天賜的「冧」女功。
「他是個運動健將，長跑紀錄多年來也沒有人能打破。有一次，他買了一條黑色皮帶，把歷來取得的金牌鑲上皮帶上送給我，我就用以配襯裙子，大搖大擺地走在大街上，他也能風光地show off。」
這條重手的「金腰帶」，成為了莫氏伉儷的訂情信物。
「那你有沒有回禮？」我問莫auntie。
「我不就是他最想要的最佳回禮麼？」話未說完，兩人已在竊笑。
如此郎情妾意實在招架不住，我還是笑著起程告辭。
莫天賜解推背圖，我早有所聞，只是找不到他的書，所以暫不評論。至於他說：
「記得《工商日報》1937 年刊登一篇乩文，其中包含紅日、白日及五星旗，正好代表日本、國民黨及共產黨，那年共產黨也未決定用五星旗，代表預言成真，那刻心情很特別，頓覺《推背圖》的厲害。」
這兒有兩個錯誤：一，乩文是1933年十二月刊出的，不是1937，據說預言者就是大名鼎鼎的諸葛孔明，這點很多人都知道；二，有一點似乎沒有人講過，就是乩文根本沒提及「五星旗」，我去年到中央圖書館看過《工商日報》的微縮菲林，我親眼見過那傳說中的乩文是這樣寫的：「青天白日由西落，五『色』旗幟向東生。」但你現在查網上版本，全都變成「五星旗幟向東生」了。相信真正的乩仙不是諸葛孔明，而是「事後孔明」才對。
附錄《諸葛孔明乩文》(網上版)：
一
天數茫茫不可知。鸞台暫說各生知。世界干戈終爆發。鼠尾牛頭發現時。此次戰禍非小可。鳶飛魚躍也愁眉。天下生靈西復東。可憐遍地是哀鴻。屍填溝壑無人拾。血染山河滿地紅。天下重武不重文。那怪環球亂紛紛。人我太陽爭北土。美人東渡海波生。十四一心人發奮。水去西方啟戰爭。晉有出頭寧坐視。中央生草不堪耘。切齒讎仇今始復。堅固金城壹旦傾。除非攜手馬先生。馬騰四海似蘇秦。遊說辯才世罕有。掉他三寸舌風生。得與聯軍說事因。東人首肯易調停。青天白日由西落。五星旗幟向東生。二蔣相爭一蔣傷。兩陳相遇一陳亡。東土不如西土樂。五羊風雨見悲傷。水巷仍須是樂邦。諸生不用走忙忙。錢財散盡猶小事。性命安全謝上蒼。今宵略說言和語。留與明宵話短長。
二
紅日落完白日落。五星燦爛文明國。中山傾頹草木殃。豺狼虎豹同一鑊。兩重火土甚光明。士農工商皆有作。木子楊花真武興。小小天罡何足論。強反弱兮弱反強。王氣金陵黯然盡。故都陜北聚英華。文物衣冠頭尚白。氣運南方出豪傑。克定中原謀統一。佳人絕色自西來。弄權竊國氣驕溢。狐兔成群功狗烹。倒亂君臣誰與匹。太陽沉去霧雲收。萬國低頭拜彌勒。治亂循環有定時。根樹生枝惟四七。聖人星出現南方。紀念化為公正堂。西南獨立曇花現。飛虎潛龍勢莫當。聯軍東指同壹氣。劍仙俠士有奇秘。水能克火火無功。炮火飛機何處避。此是陰陽造化機。意土發明成絕技。稱雄東土日己終。物歸原主非奇事。此時國恥一齊消。
三
四海昇平多吉兆。異術殺人不用刀。偃武修文日月高。三教聖人同住世。群魔妖怪豈能逃。可歎草頭燒不盡。野外春風吹又生。官中仗劍除奸佞。白頭變作赤頭人。田間再出華盛頓。造福人群是真命。此人原是紫微星。定國安民功德盛。執中守一定乾坤。巍巍蕩蕩希堯舜。百年世事不勝悲。誠恐諸君不及見。好修因果待來生。將相公侯前世善。或是星辰下界來。或是神仙搖一變。或是前生因果大。當然轉世功名顯。山人復對諸君談。續上前文同一線。千年萬載事悠悠。縱使神仙難預算。略將一二說君知。酬答諸君還了願。山人告別返山川。來年再會諸君面。諸君各自顧前程。好向靈山勤修煉。
倉海君按：只有第一段曾載於1933年的《工商日報》，我已親自看過，至於第二、三段究竟有多少處曾被人事後「修訂」，我就不得而知了。
謝謝lulu在留言中轉載了以下文章。我覺得內容頗有趣，所以決定張貼出來，並在最後附上一點評語。
_______________________________________________________
http://tinnycheng.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?_c02_owner=11 July
推天理破玄機
鄭天儀 面對面 信報 p.43 28.06.2007
「預言」是人類永恒的話題，因為科技如何發達，「未來」還是神秘莫測。
要找出未來的懸案，有人會在歷史中找線索，中國預言書《萬年歌》、《襌師詩》、《燒餅歌》等不時成為近代人藉以破解未來的工具，人人都希望手執洞悉天機的水晶球。
行將七十的莫天賜，是藝人莫文蔚的父親。別看他這個中、英混血兒生活西化，說話不時夾雜英文字詞，他卻酷愛中國文化，鑽研中國經典預言古籍《推背圖》逾三十年，費盡思量、錙銖算盡，下月他將第二度推出《推背圖》攻略。
「《推背圖》的圖象就好像一大堆包含圖畫和文字的拼圖案片（Jigsaw puzzle），砌成一幅有意義的歷史圖畫外，還能破解藏在圖文背後的預言真相。」他道。《推背圖》全書共有六十象，其中包括圖、卦、讖文及頌文。第一至三十九象是記載由唐至民國的預言，第四十至六十象是記載民國後的預言。
無出其右
莫天賜的曾外祖父愛收藏中國預言經典，十多年前他開始著書注譯《金批推背圖》，該書在2001年推出，引起不少迴響。基於明末的金聖歎已譯注了前部分，故莫天賜從第四十象起進行譯注《推背圖》蘊藏的「未來密碼」。
他閒來又以《易經》的五行定律為基礎，撰寫《給莫文蔚的健美食譜》的內容，介紹了多種湯、煲、茶、飯、菜的具體做法，並配有相關功效的介紹。
「除了我，我相信世界上無人能破解《推背圖》，所以我寫了《推背圖》後，便沒有人再夠膽再寫了。除非有人抄襲我，否則休想寫得比我更好！坊間所謂能破解《推背圖》的大師，單從圖象抽出一至兩句來便大吹大擂，簡直是貽笑大方。如果這些小輩是大師，我就是神仙！」學者的風範，有時也遮掩不了他的super ego，他直指研究推背圖一定要入準時空，否則，就枉費心機，徒勞無功。
多花六年，莫天賜下月將推出新書《最新編定推背圖》，這是他上一部著作的下集，譯注第四十六至六十象，鋪陳未來世界局勢至公元3000年世界滅亡的大事。最重要是透過第一及第六十象，破解領悟《推背圖》的法門與秘技。
「它有時要你測字，有時要你猜謎，有時更要你引古證今，少一點慧根與悟性，也絕不能參透當中的玄機。」莫天賜形容譯注《推背圖》是個如何艱苦的任務。
莫家戰前家中藏有兩個版本的《推背圖》，後來被日軍連同家中的古錢一併取走了。自小莫媽媽羅惠德便把《推背圖》內容當故事說給莫天賜聽，成為他的啟蒙老師，也是她把祖傳秘訣傳授給莫天賜，才令他得以掌握破解預言的法門。
「記得《工商日報》1937 年刊登一篇乩文，其中包含紅日、白日及五星旗，正好代表日本、國民黨及共產黨，那年共產黨也未決定用五星旗，代表預言成真，那刻心情很特別，頓覺《推背圖》的厲害。」後來重新鑽研《推背圖》，才發現何謂字字玄機。
莫天賜自誇為「世上唯一」，並非他有破解預言的神力，而是他能成功頓悟並掌握解碼的法門。「因為我洞悉了破解的basic principle，所以解碼便能不費吹灰之力。」
最重要慧根
那如何能解開《推背圖》的預言密碼？莫天賜提出了最基本的裝備，就是把數千年的歷史、《辭海》和《說文解字》念到滾瓜爛熟，但最重要是有慧根，把所有複雜及隱而未見的秘密發掘及聯繫上。
篤信道家思想的莫天賜，自言是個多神論者，既信基督又認同佛祖。此外，除了鑽研中國仙乩及預言外，莫天賜也懂得招魂、驅鬼及扶乩等道家法術，均由母親傳授。
莫天賜認為，宇宙中存在不同的鬼神，系統地按地域分布各地。「古代人與神的關係很密切，一國之君每作決定都會先求神問卜，人與神和平共處，神並非要控制人。」
我懷疑，慧根會否令一個人有先知的預測能力呢？
「除了神仙，無人能準確預言未來。但神仙是濟世的，不是下凡來歛財的！」莫天賜所說的歛財者，是他最看不起的坊間風水師。 古代先知輩出，為何近代卻無所出呢？我問。
「《推背圖》是以『三易』（即連山、歸藏和周易）的占卜方法把過去與未來逐一預測出來的。除了《周易》以外，其餘兩易已失傳，故很難將未來預卜出來了。」
至於《推背圖》如此神妙，究竟如何參透其中玄機？莫天賜拿出第四十七象說：「『一言為評』指普通話完全普及中國，中國將發明超級電腦，不出二十年，中國在科技、經濟及軍事方面都會比英美等大國更強勁。」
莫天賜說，《道德經》與《孫子兵法》等哲學書籍，不及《推背圖》實用，他還會透過五行術數等預測時勢，然後作趨吉避凶的部署。
「2001年開始，我一直人買黃金和石油股，當時的中國石油還是一元多（昨收報十一元四角），每黃金也只是二千四百元，如聽我說的人已獲利不少。」他露出滿意的笑容。
本年度最大的謎團，要數中國股市泡沫何時爆破？香港能否獨善其身？他說今年是丁亥年屬火，地支屬水，是水火不容的格局，故今年時勢不利，但他卻沒有預言中國會否有股災。
逢「七」有股災無根據
「那『逢七必有股災』的說法是否有根據呢？」我認真問。
「絕無根據。不過你看，內地人不知股票為何物，便一頭栽進股海，不製造人為災難才怪？」莫天賜認真地說。
《推背圖》第六十象講到世界末日，那是接近公元3000 年，故沒有第六十一象。究竟人類是如何滅亡的呢？
「污染令大氣層消失，所有動運因高溫而熱死。」莫天賜說得不慍不火，恍若在談論某電影的情節。
人為災害，確實比天災更有殺傷力，人類能透過做什麼而避免或延長厄運發生嗎？
「茫茫天數此中求，世道興衰不自由，萬萬千千說不盡，不如推背去歸休。」《推背圖》中預言世界末日的第六十象的頌文是《推背圖》書名的由來，也是莫天賜訪問的結尾答案。
總括莫天賜從破解《推背圖》預言世界將發生的大事 :
2007年 ‧丁亥年屬火，地支屬水，形成水火不容的相剋格局，時勢不利； 相繼出現由食物引發的疾病。
2008年 中國成為奧運會的大贏家
數年內 神州西部（西藏、新彊？）將有大規模騷亂。
10年內 美元將貶值到難以想像的地步
2023-2024年 兩岸終於和平統一，台灣重投中國懷抱。
2030年前後 ‧中國成世界第一強國，更甚於盛漢、盛唐與盛清時期； 南北極冰山因高溫（炎運）而融化，引致災難──日本與美國西部將相繼發生大地震、海嘯與陸沉。
3000年前後 人類滅亡──污染令大氣層消失，雄性動物喪失生產精子的能力，所有動物及人均由複製誕生，最後所有動運因高溫而熱死。
情迷金腰帶
「中國古代有四大美人，歷史就要改寫了，時至今日應該有五位，新增的一位不就是眼前的你。」說起話來認真得像新聞報道員的莫天賜，原來是個情聖，他就是以上述對話打動了「五大美人」委身下嫁，那人就是香港第一代電視人莫何敏儀。
古稀之年，莫天賜滑頭地示範如何打情罵俏時，不遜時下熱血男生，身旁的莫auntie笑得嘴裏差點滲出蜜糖。兩人鶼鰈情深，走過四十載的婚姻，仍然恩愛如昔。
莫天賜出身名門，父親莫理士（Alfred Morris）是香港著名學府英皇書院創校校長，也是聖約翰救傷隊的創辦人。何敏儀大學時期已是個大美人。
你們倆有什麼刻骨銘心的事？我問。
「我跟她由始至終都那麼刻骨銘心！」莫天賜搶白，我跟攝記不由全身發麻。還是莫auntie來打圓場，還告訴了筆者莫天賜的「冧」女功。
「他是個運動健將，長跑紀錄多年來也沒有人能打破。有一次，他買了一條黑色皮帶，把歷來取得的金牌鑲上皮帶上送給我，我就用以配襯裙子，大搖大擺地走在大街上，他也能風光地show off。」
這條重手的「金腰帶」，成為了莫氏伉儷的訂情信物。
「那你有沒有回禮？」我問莫auntie。
「我不就是他最想要的最佳回禮麼？」話未說完，兩人已在竊笑。
如此郎情妾意實在招架不住，我還是笑著起程告辭。
___________________________________________________
莫天賜解推背圖，我早有所聞，只是找不到他的書，所以暫不評論。至於他說：
「記得《工商日報》1937 年刊登一篇乩文，其中包含紅日、白日及五星旗，正好代表日本、國民黨及共產黨，那年共產黨也未決定用五星旗，代表預言成真，那刻心情很特別，頓覺《推背圖》的厲害。」
這兒有兩個錯誤：一，乩文是1933年十二月刊出的，不是1937，據說預言者就是大名鼎鼎的諸葛孔明，這點很多人都知道；二，有一點似乎沒有人講過，就是乩文根本沒提及「五星旗」，我去年到中央圖書館看過《工商日報》的微縮菲林，我親眼見過那傳說中的乩文是這樣寫的：「青天白日由西落，五『色』旗幟向東生。」但你現在查網上版本，全都變成「五星旗幟向東生」了。相信真正的乩仙不是諸葛孔明，而是「事後孔明」才對。
附錄《諸葛孔明乩文》(網上版)：
一
天數茫茫不可知。鸞台暫說各生知。世界干戈終爆發。鼠尾牛頭發現時。此次戰禍非小可。鳶飛魚躍也愁眉。天下生靈西復東。可憐遍地是哀鴻。屍填溝壑無人拾。血染山河滿地紅。天下重武不重文。那怪環球亂紛紛。人我太陽爭北土。美人東渡海波生。十四一心人發奮。水去西方啟戰爭。晉有出頭寧坐視。中央生草不堪耘。切齒讎仇今始復。堅固金城壹旦傾。除非攜手馬先生。馬騰四海似蘇秦。遊說辯才世罕有。掉他三寸舌風生。得與聯軍說事因。東人首肯易調停。青天白日由西落。五星旗幟向東生。二蔣相爭一蔣傷。兩陳相遇一陳亡。東土不如西土樂。五羊風雨見悲傷。水巷仍須是樂邦。諸生不用走忙忙。錢財散盡猶小事。性命安全謝上蒼。今宵略說言和語。留與明宵話短長。
二
紅日落完白日落。五星燦爛文明國。中山傾頹草木殃。豺狼虎豹同一鑊。兩重火土甚光明。士農工商皆有作。木子楊花真武興。小小天罡何足論。強反弱兮弱反強。王氣金陵黯然盡。故都陜北聚英華。文物衣冠頭尚白。氣運南方出豪傑。克定中原謀統一。佳人絕色自西來。弄權竊國氣驕溢。狐兔成群功狗烹。倒亂君臣誰與匹。太陽沉去霧雲收。萬國低頭拜彌勒。治亂循環有定時。根樹生枝惟四七。聖人星出現南方。紀念化為公正堂。西南獨立曇花現。飛虎潛龍勢莫當。聯軍東指同壹氣。劍仙俠士有奇秘。水能克火火無功。炮火飛機何處避。此是陰陽造化機。意土發明成絕技。稱雄東土日己終。物歸原主非奇事。此時國恥一齊消。
三
四海昇平多吉兆。異術殺人不用刀。偃武修文日月高。三教聖人同住世。群魔妖怪豈能逃。可歎草頭燒不盡。野外春風吹又生。官中仗劍除奸佞。白頭變作赤頭人。田間再出華盛頓。造福人群是真命。此人原是紫微星。定國安民功德盛。執中守一定乾坤。巍巍蕩蕩希堯舜。百年世事不勝悲。誠恐諸君不及見。好修因果待來生。將相公侯前世善。或是星辰下界來。或是神仙搖一變。或是前生因果大。當然轉世功名顯。山人復對諸君談。續上前文同一線。千年萬載事悠悠。縱使神仙難預算。略將一二說君知。酬答諸君還了願。山人告別返山川。來年再會諸君面。諸君各自顧前程。好向靈山勤修煉。
倉海君按：只有第一段曾載於1933年的《工商日報》，我已親自看過，至於第二、三段究竟有多少處曾被人事後「修訂」，我就不得而知了。
結婚前後(好笑耶) (轉貼)
抱愧山西
標籤:
文化討論,
明日黃花,
舒爾賽
本來想寫這個題目很久了，不過卻一直因其他事打擾及因本人間歇性懶惰，用一個學界術語來講，應叫「間歇性提不起勁症」（這學名乃由林時拉夫斯基的提不起勁症演化而來），一直遲遲未能下筆，實在有愧。
我對山西的認識，其實是來自幾年前，讀中五的時候，讀余秋雨的《從敦煌到平遙》中的一篇《抱愧山西》的文而認識。後來又粗略翻過關于山西晉商及一些關于平遙古城的書得知，其實山西都有一個輝煌的過去。不過余秋雨說他「居然把山西看成是我國特別貧困的省份之一，而且從來沒有對這種看法產生過懷疑。」，他有這種觀點其實也無可厚非，山西省的而且確是現在中國最窮的省份之一。
山西的輝煌，在于山西的平遙，當然除了平遙之外，有不少的縣在當年也火過，但最令我印象深刻的還是平遙，在山西平遙四四方方，井然有序的劃分的縣市裏，有一條西大街，你一去到便能望到一個大大的牌匾，寫着祥光如拱四個金漆大字。那裏徛立着一些矮矮的平房，連綿不斷，櫛比鱗次，祗有一層高，樓頂鋪著一片片破舊的瓦磚，灰土色的。一片片青磚灰瓦的老房子，森然的高牆与之緊密呼應，沒有兀突的高樓羼雜麤進其中，暢遊其中，你可感受到一種古撲面而來。西大街并不寬，每個體面門庭的花崗岩門坎上都有兩道很深的車轍印痕。大宅與大宅之間互相依偎著，緊挨著，分享著體溫，外貌古老的它們，內裏可能是新穎的裝潢，這也許是一種錯置、倒置，它們靜靜地豎立這裏，見證著歷史（也許它們本身就已經是歷史），見証著每一個故事。而在西大街的盡頭往右拐，便是南大街，南大街同樣都是一條歷史味兒很重的街，亦是最出名的一條街道。那裏有金井市樓啦、華門鏢局啦、同興公啦、百川通啦，簡直就像極一本活生生的歷史書。
而當年匯通天下的日昇昌便座落在西大街，至今日昇昌門前已經變成了賣饅頭，賣小吃的地方。可能有人以為山西當年之所以如此經濟蓬勃是由於山西地理優越吧？又或者土地肥沃之類吧？不過據谷霽光的《明清時代之山西與山西票號》中考證山西何以會這樣富的原因，大抵竝非由于李自成倉皇逃亡時所遺留下大量的財寶，也決非是山西的物資豐富，例如明陆深《燕閑錄》云：「禹貢八州，皆在貢物，冀州獨無之。而冀即今之山西，土瘠天寒，生物鱻少，盖自古已然。」，任啟運謂：「自直隶北境及山西，大抵土廣而人稀，江南二百四十步為廟，山西千步為廟，而田之歲入不及江南之什一。」，王昶亦有謂：「晉省磽瘠，產粮无多，旱年本恃外省接濟。」，因此山西的辳民在這種資料上看，也是生活得很艱苦的。（另山西本省貧患，尚可見于《東華錄》，不過據孫毓棠先生《清代的墾田及丁口記錄》一文的考證，在明代萬曆至清代康熙期間山西的耕地面積比當時的陝西、甘肅、四川甚至廣東都要多，而據王毓銓先生的《明代的王府莊田》附錄中的山西更名地表提到山西的耕地面積在明初也不算少，同樣據王業鍵先生《清代經濟芻議》中亦計算了，山西清代人口除以耕地面積的比率亦都比廣西、浙江、江蘇及廣東地區為少），因此谷霽光先生推論山西票號發達之原因，可能是由于山西在明清時代在交通上的重要性，自元以降，驛站日多，發㠭至清時，山西之交通地位已臻最高之境，由永濟入境者，總握西北與西南驛運樞紐，由大同入境者，也總握蒙古及以北諸地之驛運的樞紐，另據梁小民的《小民話晉商》中提及為明朝政府寔行「開中法」，為觧決駐邊軍隊糧餉，給晉商提供為軍隊輸送糧食的機會，晉商取得販鹽的特權，獲取厚利。同時，他們開始從事中蒙邊境商業活動，開拓內外蒙古市場，發展當地經濟。在政府的支持下，晉商得以壯大財富；回鄉後，紛紛買田地、築房產，誇富於鄰里之間，經商的風氣大盛。而隨「開中法」後，明政府又实行「折色制」，但晉商依然懂得把握商機，所以明代晉商基本上差不多為最大的商幫之一。如嘉靖時，嚴嵩的兒子嚴世蕃與人討論天下富豪時，把「積資滿五十萬以上」作為富戶的標準時，共有十七家列入，除皇室達官外，民間共有五家，其中「山西二姓、徽州二姓」。明人沈思孝在《晉錄》中提到：「平陽、澤、潞豪商大賈甲天下，非數十萬不稱富。」另明人謝肇淛在《五雜俎》中說：「富室之稱雄者，江南則推新安，江北則推山右。新安大賈，魚鹽為業，藏鏹有至百萬者，其他二三十萬，則中賈耳。山右或鹽或絲，或轉販，或窖粟，其富甚于新安。」，可見明代，晉商已經富甲天下。難怪梁啟超都嘗言：「鄙人在海外十餘年，對於外人批評吾國商業能力，常無辭以對，獨至此，有歷史，有基礎，能繼續發達之山西商業，鄙人常自誇於世界人之前。」
不過山西晉商發達後卻並非靠剝削或靠欺詐而來，梁小民先生在《小民話晉商》中亦提到：「他們（指晉商）的成就證明了『小富靠智，大富靠德』。成大商者，必有大德，晉商就是這樣的大商。」而且山西人有很多重信義的諺語，要求子孫們銘記，例如「寧叫賠折腰，不叫客吃虧」啦；「買賣不成仁義在」啦；「仁中取利真君子，義內求財大丈夫」啦；「誠召天下客，義納八方財」啦；「以義取利，利從義生」等等。山西人在歷史上給人的印象都是勤儉純樸，如《詩‧唐風》傳：山西「土瘠民貧，勤儉質樸，憂深思遠，有堯之遺風。」杜佑《通典》：「山西土瘠，其人勤儉。而河東魏晉以降，文學盛興，閭井之間，習於程法。並州近狄俗，尚武藝。」《隋志》：「人物殷阜，然不甚機巧，其於三聖遺風尚未盡澌滅。」至明代前期，依然是民風淳樸，勤儉不華，力田務實，因北臨邊塞，民尚習武。
發生黑窰事件的洪洞縣，是屬于臨汾市轄下的管區，歷史上，洪洞是屬于民風盡力耕織、民風勤儉、崇尚文學的州縣（根據張正明《明中葉以來山西民風的變化》一文中的資料），不過自明中葉以降後的民風正如明人顧炎武所說，「國初，民無他嗜，崇尚簡質，中產之家，猶躬薪水之役。……後則靡然向奢，以儉為鄙。……而奢靡之風，乃比于東南」，另明人周永春說：「竊聞沃土之民淫淫則忘善，瘠土之民勞勞則思善，今民不知勞勞而淫淫心舍力奢溢潛差，俗弊矣」。萬曆年間汾陽知府趙喬年，在《風俗利弊說》一文中稱：「志稱民性淳厚，俗尚勤儉，好義敦信，豈非陶唐氏之遺風猶未泯歟，惟是宗室繁衍，漸流怙移，民間效尤，竟務奢靡，建淫祠，崇鬼事，蝶褻不經之費動千百計，財匱而俗亦蔽矣」，從上可知山西人在明中葉以降後頂多是侈奢，當然若果根據現今經濟學的角度來說，如凱恩斯的總需求決定國民收入的理論，節儉對於經濟增長並沒有什麼好處。實際上，這裡蘊涵著一個矛盾：公眾越節儉，降低消費，增加儲蓄，往往會導致社會收入的減少。就像我們中五讀過的存款創造一樣，那些貨幣一路滾存下去，賬面值往往比實際值為大。
「問我祖先何處來，山西洪洞大槐樹」。山西是中國人傳說中共同祖先的發源地，而這首民諺所說的發源就在洪洞的大槐樹。或者上面一大堆東西好像把議題都扯開了。但我們亦不能從中發現山西曾是富甲天下，也因勤儉，講道義經商而聞名遐邇，可是到今天呢？我們可以見到，窯主王兵兵的妻子對丈夫被抓，還堅稱丈夫沒錯，一切都像是應份似的，一切都好像那麼理所當然。山西人呀山西人，你們的良心去了那裏？你們那些「正其誼不謀其利，明其道不計其功」的崇高理想去了哪？當初「走西口」，那種四面城牆困不下山西晉商大志的情懷已經隨風飄逝，空餘一班只求蠅頭小利而不惜利用特權、見利忘義、靠剝削去賺取利益極大化的無良商人。
從別處抓來人家的孩子，去做苦工，連磚都未冷却已經要他們背出來，燙得他們背部傷痕纍纍，又找打手虐打那些窰工，甚至連工資都可以不給，又擄拐少女作窯工的性奴，打死了窰工，只草草包起屍體拋在一旁或活埋了便算，這一切一切都令人髮指！不過聽聞窯主還是包工本來是每月要給三百塊錢工資予窰工，但這個數目也實比國家規定每月四百七十元為低。如果我們對比清朝的薪金來看，根據林達‧約翰遜的《帝國晚期的江南城市》中1693年蘇州布匠每天的工資為0.011兩，而每石（與每擔同）稻米的價錢為0.98兩。而王業鍵的《近代四川合江縣物價與工資的變動趨勢》一文中，以光緒元年為例，米一市升（清代一市升相約現今的五公升）值0.031兩，即46文錢，豬肉一斤0.032兩，即48文錢，但以一個木石泥蔑工為例，一天工資則只是0.027兩，合算40文錢。一天的工資連一斤豬肉及一升米也買不到，更可況買菜油、薪、鹽之類？但魏金玉的《明清時代的農業資本主義萌芽問題》一文中據清初《補農書》所提供的資料匡算「長工每一名工銀五兩，吃米五石五斗，平價五兩五錢」。副食按為主食的112626 倍計算，工錢部分占29 %，工食部分佔71 %。這是說需要兩個人出僱，才可維持另一個人過同樣的生活。又陶煦在《租核》中說，江南長工工價「多或七八石，少或五石，再少者不能耕十畝者也」。他又與《補農書》作比較說「今工銀稍增，亦以米計，歲六石」。按照他的說法，一般長工價年工資約米五或六石，技能較高的可達七八石，技能低者在五石以下。乾隆十七年前後，浙江湯溪縣謝起常僱喬嵩種靛三年，「言定每年辛力銀八兩二錢」。據汪輝祖《病榻夢痕錄》所記蕭山乾隆十七年前後米價推算，石米約合銀一兩一錢左右。則八兩二錢工價，約合米七石左右。種靛需一定技術，故喬嵩工資較高。這說明年工資七八石米的工價，確實是存在的。考慮到長工的飲食一般較為優厚，張履祥就主張對待長工要「吃口好」。如果省吃儉用，七八石米的工價，或可能養活一個長工的成年家屬。（參考自方行的《清代前期江南的勞動力市場》），如果年工資八石，以上面的計法折算，則平均每日的工資有0.25兩左右，但這裏提到七八石米價，可能養活一個長工的成年家屬，當然省吃省住或許可以的。可見這三百塊的薪水連清朝的工人都不如！
而邱澎生在《清代蘇州棉、絲工業的放料制生產》一文中已經提到清代商人及僱工本身有契約關係，勞資雙方有爭拗亦可透過官府解決，想不到在現今廿一世紀的中國，竟然會出現這種特權、剝削的情況出現？馬克思最反對的便是剝削，想不到共產黨統治之下，剝削卻隨處可見？不過可能有人會說歐洲也有「黑磚窯」，不過同樣問題，人家歐洲有傳媒監察，有比較完善的法制，反觀中國？當年我讀《中國農民調查》的時候都知中國每個省的壞事，總是一層瞞一層，到最後好多時省領導為了要粉飾太平都不會向中央匯報，報喜不報憂，甚止試圖阻止苦主上京告狀。不過或者上面這些事都是盲目資本主義化，工具理性化下所產生的悲劇吧？這個是現今人類社會的共業！道德的失落，在今天道德是否只是市場間的供求關係？這個或許是吾人今後所應反思的問題！
與青年談中國文化
標籤:
文化討論,
明日黃花,
舒爾賽
今日乃七一回歸十年，昨天乃高考學生放榜，聽聞英文合格率創新低，我常跟人說，香港都回歸十年了，我們作為一個中國人，英文要夠爛才像一個中國人的嘛！
于是在此大好十年下，為大家闡釋下咱們中國文化、祖國文化的偉大！
中國文化事例舉隅：
家天下：
「鄧林認為清場是正確的，否則若交由學生領袖吾爾開希等人掌握中國的命運，便不會有改革開放，社會一定大亂。」 (明報) 06月 25日
中國文化傳統常言三代之前乃公天下，三代乃家天下，然後就是私天下。嚴格點來講，鄧林這種觀念屬于私天下的思想，仍認為改朝換代後，就自己做皇帝，卻不知那班學生要求的是反貪腐，要求民主，並不是要自己做皇帝呢！
「她說，六四清早的天安門清場，並非鄧小平一人的決定，是『他們領導人的決定』，因此不應由「哪一個人具體負責」。」 (明報) 06月 25日
是否要由鄧小平來負責，《邓小平是六四屠杀的罪魁祸首》這篇文已經講得好清楚。但就算這篇文講得不對，照上面鄧林的思路，難道她連「朕躬有罪，無以萬方；萬方有罪， 罪在朕躬」都未聽過嗎？
權威性人格：
（明報） 06月 21日 星期四：李國章在壓力、焦慮或憤怒的情况下，有可能說要和陸鴻基或教院「算帳」，以宣泄不滿，但認為有關字句無論怎樣令人不快，也不過是表達方式的一種，沒有向陸鴻基施壓和威脅的意圖。
（大公報）2007-6-21：委員會綜合所有證供指出，即使李國章使用的字句怎樣令人不快，也只不過是一種表達的方式，李國章很可能沒有向陸鴻基威脅的意圖。
原來只要是一種表達方式，表達怎令人不快，沒有威脅意圖就不構成入罪。我記得上次坐車聽見收音機新聞廣播說因為李國章是在上者，決策者，說這些話是出于善意，無可厚非云云。這個令我想起一個有趣的現象。我們設想如果一個爸爸跟女兒說，你再不勤力，你就會被蹂躪（raped），又或者一個上司跟女下屬說，你再不做出點成績，你就會被蹂躪，那麼，是否多麼令人不快，也只不過是一種表達的方式呢？天下無不是之父母，為尊者諱、為親者諱、為賢者諱，既然並沒有構成威脅，又或者辯稱沒有威脅的意圖就應該由得他們繼續蹂躪你呢？
「豈料到偏偏是03、04年這些日子，我的日常工作就變成了『干預學術自由』。顯然在什麼是學術自由的問題上，調查委員會與作為公務員的我，有嚴重分歧，並且沒有妥協餘地。……『一葉而知秋』，對於所有無畏無懼地堅守原則，為公眾利益盡忠職守的公務員而言，我的經歷是否就是他們的明天﹖」
日常工作，盡忠職守，幾十年公僕，一葉而知秋，相信不用多講，也會想到《一生為奴》這套刻，鬼子六奕訢一生都盡忠職守，但他的下場如何？
高考有一課金耀基的《中國的傳統社會》：「海根(Everett B. Hagen)說在傳統的階層系統中，每個人均有雙重地，即他本身是一『在上者』，亦同時是一『在下者』，而隨歲月之變，『在下者』總逐漸成為『在上者』；此猶媳婦之可成為婆婆，子女之可成為父母，下僚之可成為上官。而一個中國人在社會或政府做事，首先在腦海裏考慮的不是『甚麼是甚麼』的問題，而是『誰是誰』的問題。因為決定對錯是非常視乎階層的身分而非事情的本身。『天下無不是之父母』的說法雖可從父母之慈愛心上說明之，但亦未始不可從階層性上說明之。這種情形可見之於師生、夫婦，亦可見之於君臣、官民，在一般人的心理上，老師總是對的，君主總是不可挑戰的，官老爺總是沒錯的，在中國先秦儒家的原典中，雖然有相對主義的精神，但此只限於理論層，而在行為層上則總為絕對的片面精神所籠制。」，就如曾特首的做好份工的心態，都只是這種權威性人格呢！
超穩定結構：
相信很多人都聽過這個名詞－超穩定結構，而亦有不少人知道這個名詞是由金觀濤、劉青峰夫婦首先提出的假說，不過我翻查過，原來在更早時，孫隆基在《中國文化的「深層結構」》中已經提出。
根據AM730于六月七日的頭版報導，摘錄了吳邦國的論點，有
- 基本法為長期穩定的法制保障
- 保持繁榮穩定為落實基本法重點
似乎保持穩定是中國大陸一貫想保持的政策，而同時在穩定之餘又要發展經濟，但在制度不變的前提下，經濟發展而缺乏圓善的制度，似乎必然會造成種種社會不公，但同時又要和諧穩定，這中間便存在著一個弔詭。
不過這種情況使我想起明朝，明朝是一個文人集體墮落的時代，比起南宋的「山外青山樓外樓，西湖歌舞幾時休。 暖風熏得遊人醉，直把杭州作汴州。」的情境更加墮落。明朝的經濟發展得好蓬勃，但政制，帝國卻像金氏夫婦所言的超穩定結般發展，這方面的論述可參看黃仁宇的《萬曆十五年》及卜正民的《縱慾的困惑》。明朝更是咱們中國經濟史上一直爭論著是否資本主義產生的一個年代。其實我們只要翻開張岱的《陶庵夢憶》，就會知明代的生活實已經十分「資本主義」了。
不過我可以舉一個例子，例如明朝朱鏞修撰的《崇武所城志》中便提到：「近數十年來，士習民心漸失其初，雖家詩書而戶禮樂，然趨富貴而厭貧賤。喜告訐，則借勢以逞，曲直至於不分；奢繁華，則曳縞而游，良賤幾於莫辯，禮逾於僭，皆無芒刺，服恣不衷，身忘災逮。」，而據全漢昇先生考證，明朝在一六一八年至一六二一年間的物價指數基本上漲了幾倍，但基本薪金卻維持不變。我們只要比對現在香港，以上的情況與我們何其相似啊！
在此祝願各位今年高考放榜的同學們，希望你們找到自己心中的那條道路。與青年談中國文化亦到此完畢，多謝收看！
可能學麥嘜那間春田花花幼稚園的校長黎根所言：「中國文化，近，中國文化，認真近！」，甚至可能談與青年談中國萌化或中國石化，這些題目來得更有趣。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
