疇昔之夜.閒遊網絡.偶睹Y.T.五年前舊作.覽之興懷.感斯文未墜.斤質猶存.假我暇日.必重修舊業.以俟子期之賞.特錄少作於此.用識此事.倉海君零七年八月七日記於豹變堂.
序
余三年前始讀舊詩.心竊好焉.既而諷誦寖多.腹笥稍盈.頗以為有裨於製作.遂率爾而賦.年來積數十首.庋藏不問久矣.比來乘暇理篋.檢視殘稿.頓覺光景奔輪.前塵似夢.既嘆當年之電貿.復嗤少作之羊腔.忽憶濟慈嘗云.人值血氣未定之齡.習性恆遷.舉厝靡常.馳騖有餘而思慮不足以致遠.故多工愁善感.強作蟲吟.斯言正切吾舊作之病.雖然.曩昔情事.亦憑此留痕.茫茫來日.能無覽紙興懷乎哉.今姑謄錄其猶可觀者.益以新製.都為一卷.題作未焚草.以示素無立言垂世之意.聊待異日付火可也.九八歲杪踽涼生序
自註. Keats, Preface to Endymion : “The imagination of a boy is healthy, and the mature imagination of a man is healthy; but there is a space of life between, in which the soul is in a ferment, the character undecided, the way of life uncertain, the ambition thick-sighted: thence proceeds mawkishness.”
九六年
贈楊素懷
滔滔天下是.知我者誠希.素懷雋俗士.緇塵未涴衣.在眾若處野.陶然獨忘機.古心更古貌.危坐山巍巍.墳典無盡藏.疊窗天日微.精思耽經術.夙與眾相違.於邑孔孟道.行世日斜暉.奮庸熙聖載.會借魯戈揮.舉世迷不返.手援天下歸.今無惛惛事.赫赫詎可祈.風雲一朝遇.魚潛化龍飛.予真局井底.明朝渺難幾.邂逅暫適願.何時能相依.綢繆百年好.百年露未晞.
自註.楊君即掬香齋主人
偶書兩章
上清一謫苦沉淪.天地翻時復幾塵.彈指春餘無限恨.回頭人已百年身.落花委地枝空折.閱水成川世又新.不覺蹉跎徒負負.東風柳絮總傷神
夙因欲叩竟何由.心事楊花轉未休.倘許為萍終勿起.即今咒筍亦難留.癡雲夢雨經春散.獨鵠孤鸞對鏡羞.明日出山泉水濁.回頭又閱幾身秋
晨起聞雨聲
吾今喪我無人會.乍覺敲窗有客來.人在雨聲中睡起.夢如畏客故飄開
朝見大霧
飛樓聳翠覓都空.十里花藏纈眼紅.下矚茫然天委地.高呼快矣嘯生風
身拋人海沉浮外.夢入雲鄉散聚中.分我廬山煙一袖.便來終日興無窮
戲書
詩魔窮鬼總為儔.帝遣吟哦起且休.若得掣鯨遊碧海.不勞騎鶴上揚州
山路獨行
林鳥含情歌睍睆.山英無意落繽紛.不通姓字飄然去.信步偷香到夕曛
雜阿含經謂一比丘迎風而坐.隨風嗅香.有天神語何以盜華.汝今便是盜香賊也.
四拗
唯饑宜下飯.長賤好吟詩.病得閒中趣.愁為悶裏資.
附青玉案
人生少聚還成別.隙駒過.煙雲絕.兜覺前塵如電抹.悲歡元幻.合離須慣.把盞無言說. 憐君表裏都霜雪.顧我終難為人熱.一笑相忘成解脫.秋來拋扇.世情燭轉.休羨雙飛蝶.
九七年
病中有悟
曩恨此身非我有.今存病骨欲之無.一風能使花開落.泰火經春是否鑪
夢中見善恆覺來有感
知君真箇似飛蓬.夢亦西東亂逐風.剎那相逢仍話別.人生無乃太匆匆
夏日細雨欣然獨步
一雨將秋驀地涼.輕陰漠漠日悠揚.興來打繖充荷響.意愜臨風覺草香
身與浮雲同澹蕩.人行鬧市各棲遑.只今誰憶煙波叟.自在沙邊臥未央
暮春三題
日夕飛花輕似夢.春闌世事淡如煙.此身難借風歸去.不到蓬萊第幾年
仰望夢夢不我矜.胸中靈氣枉鎪冰.天荒地老誰人會.獨立蒼茫杜少陵
紅紫朝朝恨發遲.漫山笑立鬥嬌姿.豈知一旦芳菲盡.都似春風未到時
遣愁
推擠不去向三年.井底鳴蛙占一天.臂未屈伸成昨夢.帝教跼蹐讀陳編
盡看百鳥翔空後.更閱千帆到岸邊.肯放閒雲從此逝.還山身世兩無緣
楊君素懷語予.同學有一女甚可人意.雖暗悅之.苦無行媒.迄今不相知名.因竟日浩歎.望風軫慨.誠可哀復可笑也.蓋吾曹既慕為方外之人.尚智之士.則非特禮之所設.并情之所鍾亦不宜在吾輩也.因賦詩一首以調素懷.
行廁污囊美莫誇.昏迷世喚一團花.子無感帨尨將吠.春暗穿牆鼠有牙
隱約窺蓮依霧立.蕭疏怯葉逐人遐.意根薤本端難拔.慎勿情田漫種芽
初與友人期暑假出遊.復囊空弗克成行.遂賦一律以謝.並用自解.
輸與長江浩蕩流.依然永日鎖重樓.寫憂徒效魚千里.破恨寧煩酒一甌
貧未辦車聊大隱.神堪作馬且天遊.宮人錯羨波中葉.不道無心最自由
上錢鍾書楊絳兩先生
平生軒輊豈常儔.追逐雲間隘九州.擺落群盲隨摸象.滑稽庶物任呼牛
氣吞四海無全目.生出三災已白頭.會復相酬鳴幾世.長看凡鳥黯然愁
風漂蘀落縱堪嗟.賴有寒梅晚著花.獨立冰霜猶帶笑.迭來寵辱總無譁
未知俱老何堪隱.想得相隨便是家.弄翰賭書忘歲月.憑他春日逗天涯
雲龍相逐兩騷人.願把文章謁後塵.早向書中嘗世味.豈從劫裏喪天真
待寧潭月微波影.洗出泥蓮異調身.今日維摩權示疾.明朝花鳥信精神
九八年
論詩二絕句
一寸心波萬象縈.珠沉學海老龍驚.群愚未領風騷妙.卻說唯專對屬名
舊詩實優於新詩.然其妙本不在形式工整也
氣帶風沙刊少作.多師詎肯守青箱.細流也是崑崙派.晚炷無題一瓣香
題槐聚詩存後
聞錢鍾書先生下世感而有作
一片花飛去.神州不復春.文章泉下夢.富貴眼邊塵.秦失哀寧入.容齋筆待新.高風誰與逝.彭澤晉詩人.
無題
千尺桃花水.相思一寸灰.桑蠶空自裹.蠟燭替誰哀.午夜翻書帙.平明送酒杯.吾誠無復慰.辜負謫仙才.
生日雜詩
偶落繁華地.甘為澹蕩人.任真欣自得.避俗嬾相親.籠鳥飛還住.巫雲卷又伸.漫誇心化石.終古不緇磷.
幼好潯陽隱.長懷躡子蹤.尋書佳趣溢.枕菊夢香濃.忽忽旋磨蟻.憧憧鑽紙蜂.滿山桃李俗.秋水渺芙蓉.
外編
二零零二年
某君屢招飲茶聊題短句以寄
坐聽松風生午琖.閒煎雪沫軟枯腸.人間湛濁來無路.一笑由他四大忙
下帷未覺公羊惑.摘句何妨女史吟.永日茶煙揮麈尾.倡條冶葉不關心
風簾不捲光如潑.晴日烹香颺乳花.乍喜吳兒真木石.年來曾未變鶉蛙
世路無窮.但有茶煙引緒.往事千端.都來眼底.四年來錮智惠於塵俗.槁項黃馘.幾偷愒逸樂.所幸道勝胸臆.公羭未攘.終以執志不化.把琖思之.能無喜乎.
自註.某君即左冷禪
赴法前與數友遊寶蓮寺大佛下終日不見一僧
追涼方喜暫登臨.宴坐山圍靜洗心.午梵不聞疑有寺.夏雲稍聚議成陰
年華節物交愁短.意味空門漸覺深.似恐相逢端過恨.闍黎何處臥愔愔
杜詩.相逢恐恨過
旅寓中秋作
飄零苦厭抵中秋.屩褐生涯未自謀.佳節殊鄉無舊友.重逢唯有月當頭
未焚草
標籤:
倉海君,
詩詞歌賦
訂閱：
發佈留言 (Atom)
31 留言:
曩者曾見耿湋《春日即事》一首，與君《四拗》雙映成趣。且誌之。
唔....未焚草...好名....好名, 但係唔知閣下幾時先至肯攞呢堆草去焚呢呵? 大大話話都放左響恕十九幾年架啦喎倉海兄...
Did the HK education system produced such a fine individual or Y.T is from another country/planet/universe?
I am very amazed at his ability in Victorian English + Old School Chinese + Debate logic that defines normal definition of being "educated"
He is waayyyyy pass that...now tell me, who is this guy???
What kind of education he has?
I mean Defies not Defines @#$Y^&$%
暗黑的卡夫卡,
To answer your second question, namely, "
What kind of education he has?", let me quote a few lines from a seemingly irrelevant book: "It would seem safe to assume that Milton was no exception to the rule that men of genius, whatever formal arrangements are made about their education, are largely self-taught; as little influenced by whatever acadamies they happen to attend as if they had never been to school or university." (A.N.Wilson, The Life of John Milton)
As to your first question, "who is this guy???", I don't quite understand. From a person's literary compositions, I think, you can always deduce all you need to know of him. By the way, I don't know Y.T. personally either, but his virtual existence on the Net suffices to tell who he is.
倉海君:
Thanks for your reply. I agree what you said about a man of genius.
I am just curious about his background. I do believe that sometimes what a man wrote is different from his character...and thats the beauty of literature...even if you are a demon yourself, you can dream and write about heaven...
暗黑的卡夫卡,
I wonder if I should take your comment as a derogatory intimation of Y.T.'s "demoniac nature" concealed by his ornate writing style. For those who frequently visit Inmedia, epithets and labels slapped on Y.T. are only too well-known to deserve my passing mention here. But in case you are not clued up on his latest "name-tag", I may offer one nice specimen: "人渣".It is generally observed that propositions, true or not, having been repeated a thousand times, and by a multitude of people, would readily strike us as truth. Be cautious then, where you are aware of being led by others to hold this opinion or that. But if reason and judgement indeed underlie your view about Y.T., well, I would not say that you are wrong, or that my judgement should override yours because I have better training to read his words, thereby understanding more fully his mind and character. As to whether he is a "demon", you are entitled to make your own judgement. Believe it or not, the proponents of "人渣邏輯" should be the other party. The reason thereof, which I shall refrain from explicating, unless I am to enter into another round of heated debate, can be easily found out by a careful reading of the arguments from both parties. Enjoy the analysis, or forget it.
倉海, don't you think you are obsessed with yt, idolizing him and worshipping him to such an extent that you don't see the other side of yt ?
我也想請問暗黑的卡夫卡一下, 他的回應好像前設了鄧先生是demon...
又, Anonymous, 你說"you don't see the other side of yt", 你知道鄧先生的other side嗎? 姑勿論倉海君並無任何意圖idolise及worship鄧先生, 你的問題的邏輯是 1. idolise及worship一定是偏頗的,不全面的; 並 2. 鄧先生是"邪惡的", 但倉海君因著他的idolise及worshipping"合理化了"鄧先生。請問你是這個意思嗎?
用"人渣"稱呼鄧先生實在太過份。我到Inmedia只為看鄧先生的文章/回應, Inmedia本身只能勾起我的激憤。
鄧先生的文章/回應及倉海君先前有關法利賽人、哲學、思辨等的回應, 在我看來, 還是用了Inmedia(容許我這兒用了一個能指)所不明白的方法去闡釋你們的想法。我認為, 這是鄧先生受Inmedia土共式謾罵的其中一個主因。鄧先生甚至不是布魯諾, 但Inmedia已為他高高的舉起火把。
思辨並無對錯之分, 只有完善與否。但Inmedia的眼中只有對錯, 加上他們缺乏扎實的邏輯思維、歷史、社會學等的根基, 你們的對話, 根本就不是在同一個平台上進行。當你們仔細推敲, 意圖在對話中理出一個脈絡, 對方可不這樣想。
我痛恨Inmedia, 主要是因為他們和他們攻擊的對象別無二致(尤其是泥彩之流的 - 我不懂形容, 姑且稱之為刁民式的 - 謾罵)。骨子裡, 他們也是一個"一言堂", 容不下半點不同的聲音。讀了他們的一些文章及回應(主要是那些針對鄧先生的回應), 自問已掌握他們的思維(多單一)及政治形態。他們和他們所攻擊的對象 - 主要是香港政府吧, 只不過是一個mirror image。做自己口說最討厭別人做的事, 才是最混蛋的。
補充, 之前看到有人將"刁民"與"父母官"對上, 用之攻擊"刁民"一詞。Such sophistry (not subtle or clever at all) demonstrates nothing but the innate inferiority of the interlocutor.
再補充, 之前Inmedia中曾有人抨擊鄧先生/倉海君(我記不起了)不要將Inmedia看成是一個群體去"攻擊"。但我在Inmedia只看到兩極: 以本土行動成員為首的一群及支持及推動其留言的人 - 我在這裡所指的, 並非對個別事件的看法而是一個generic的思維模式及價值觀 - 及他們反對的所有人(這些人被他們用一些很generic的詞彙 - 例如"人渣" - 概括了)。故我用Inmedia作為一個能指, 用得心安理得。
我認同"行動"有其意義, 但絕對反對"本土行動"。
(Some typos have been detected in my original comment. Here is the revision.)
Anonymous,
Am I "idolizing him and worshipping him"? This is plain overstatement. You know too little of me, and your prejudice against Y.T., I presume to say, has led you to blink the fact that he is not the only, nor the first, person whose essays are recommended by me here. Why didn't you call me a fan of, say, Zeke, Frisson, or Roland?
Let me tell you more about myself: when I admire a writer's works, I never worship him; I ABSORB him instead. For sure, there is always one writer I can never succeed in absorbing, and He is the writer of The Book of Nature. In front of Him, and Him alone, I would bow and sue for grace with suppliant knee.
For all Y.T.'s eloquence and learning, there are indeed tactics, subtle sophistry included, not unlikely to beat him. Therefore I did not intend to recommend his writings here merely for his pageantry of rhetoric and debating skills, which, in effect, cannot appeal to me, a student of classical oratory myself, as much as you might wish to believe. As a matter of fact, I esteem him highly for his thoughtfulness, passion, and respect for traditional values, in which lots of writers nowadays are wanting.
Were I prone to worship the gloss of learning, the ornament of rhetoric, or the endeavour to uphold the Chinese language in its purity and splendour, I would not have taken 古德明,陶傑,正字博士 to task in some of my old posts. On the other hand, if I really loved the game of outwitting learned authority and bookish, clever guys like Y.T., I should have made the best use of my secret knack of dispute by joining forces with the "majority" (if I am not mistaken about the general opinion of him), in the hope of earning more applause.
Why risk, then, the criticism of others by aligning myself with the "demon"? The fact is that I simply do not agree with this sort of hasty condemnation, if not intentional denigration. I invite all of you who dislike him for his mode of thinking and speaking, probably much different from yours, to review more deeply and seriously his words and underlying thoughts. I am not so gullible, nor you.
本來只是貼我自己一些劣詩，無端變成了人物月旦，真怪。人人都有the other side，這點我不反對，只是那一面未必就可以簡化得用"邪惡"二字概括。Anonymous認為我"idolizing him and worshipping him"，卻不記得我曾多次質疑過Y.T.的論點，這不是一廂情願是啥？雖說偏見是思想的放假，總不成年復一年地曠職吧？Bildub，且莫勞氣，世界這麼大，也無謂在乎A如何評價B， C如何討厭D了，不是說不辯(若是，blog也索性關掉吧)，而是辯而不怒。珍重身體。
倉海,
1. i asked a question; yes, indeed it is a question that starts with "don't you think" and ends with a question mark. i never said in a statement that i 認為你 "idolizing him and worshipping him".
2. maybe i over-reacted, maybe i over-read, maybe i mis-understood this old chinese phrase : 以俟子期之賞. in any event, i don't seem to recall your extending this invitation of 以俟子期之賞 to zeke, frisson and ronald; well, actually, no such invitation whatsoever to anyone who has been contributing to this blog.
3. never ever have i used the term "邪惡" to describe yt. it is true that i am not 100% with him on his arguments. but never ever have i had any prejudice against him. and to tell you the truth, i have even once encouraged him to keep on writing in inmedia though i also pointed out to him that he is not going to please everybody.
4. your first response "I am not so gullible, nor you." is perfect. for that reason, i didn't plan to respond further to your or bildub's response. but this second one "思想的放假" ? i think it is a bit of an over-do, hence my also over-do response here. sorry.
we can all stop here. as you said : 世界這麼大，也無謂在乎A如何評價B， C如何討厭D了. perhaps all we need is just a healthy dose of sobriety to make us all not so gullible.
anonymous 的1﹐2﹐無聊的執著﹐3﹐多餘廢話﹐4﹐令我想起小學生的對話: "你擦鞋﹐我無﹐我又無話你﹐你頭先有講﹐我無﹐你蠢﹐我唔蠢﹐你有講﹐我無咁話﹐你好多餘﹐我唔同你講嘢﹐我要同你絕交..." 不過講真﹐我亦覺倉兄的答覆自辯也同樣多餘。一句儘用 obsessed﹐idolizing﹐worshipping 等等已覺是無聊的挑逗﹐係倉兄你先有氣好應。當然﹐要執著起來﹐就沒事情是太小﹐沒有那樣是不值爭論﹐一切全屬當事人的主觀價值。
每個人都有一個自己以為是自己的自己﹐一個想投射更好的自己﹐一個別人眼中的自己﹐一個受偏見眼光看著的自己﹐和一個真真正正的自己。與其說偏見是思想的假期﹐倒不如說大部份人由少到大所學習的就是偏見的儲集﹐他們的所謂思想就是在偏見之中徘徊。以為把偏見說得振振有詞就是有思想﹐而所羨慕﹑所學習的往往只是如何把他們的偏見推高到另一個層次。
可能﹐人沒有偏見就是不能活著﹐好像給盲目的行為帶來了點意義﹐也像為膚淺虛空的生活帶來一點點價值﹐一點存在的目的。其實要思想﹐就自然有偏頗﹐我也曾想過﹐自己的偏見和這些人的偏見分別在何處。得到的答案是﹐我們的偏見反映較接近現實世界﹐他們這堆人根本不理解現實的運作﹐在閉門做車。但是有時也想﹐這有什麼關係? 到最終﹐yt不是也在對牛彈琴﹐獨媒的人群不是也繼續愚頓嗎? 我﹐不是也有自己的執著? 其實由始至終﹐我們從來唯一可執著的﹐往往就是自己的世界。我們只活在不同執著的聚合和分離之間。
有些人會有大智慧去教育黎民﹐但是我想我只能獨善其身﹐孤芳自賞﹐浮沉人世﹐未嘗不是樂事。YT﹐雖然我也不知他的動機﹐甚至有時覺得他浪費時間﹐但是我對熱衷於自己的執著的人向來喜歡。哈﹐就如林﹑黃大評論員﹐我也佩服那種堅忍不屈﹐長期製造垃圾的精神。就算愚蠢﹐那份恆心還可真難得。
愛因斯坦寫過:
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form."
道士,
你真是高人, 一語中的地評了倉海的 "答覆自辯也同樣多餘。"
不過, anonymous 不是已說過他的話是 over-do 的嗎? 還用你多嘴, 寫得比倉海還多? 還要沾了愛因斯坦的光?
那我也來沾沾 Thomas Carlyle 的光 : The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was. Don't know about 倉海 or yt, but you and I are citizens of this republic; you and i are mere mediocrities.
不好意思我打錯字, "思辨"當作"思辯"。
Anonymous, "perhaps all we need is just a healthy dose of sobriety to make us all not so gullible" >> 要有一個sober的談話, 最基本, 要準確地用字, 清楚地表達自己的意思, 不單是字面上的意思, 還有underlying message, 是吧? 當你希望人家以sober的態度看待你, 請你也先dose yourself with sobriety.
道士兄, "我們的偏見反映較接近現實世界" >> 現實, 在何處?
bildub,
i am not so sure why you kept forcing this spectre of "underlying msg" upon me. when i said i just asked a question, i really meant it -- yes, i only asked a question for which 倉海 has already given a perfect answer, which i have also explicitly mentioned in my previous post.
also, i have never asked you guys 以 sober 的態度看待我. from which sentence, which phrase, which word, did you think i asked for that? honestly, this is just an exchange in the vitrual world of internet and i couldn't care less if you are sober or not as i don't even know who you are and how you see this world or me.
you just mis-read, over-read me. that is all. period.
Anonymous,
"思想的放假", in all honesty, was not meant as a criticism of you. I was just thinking of some deep-seated, and even unconscious, prejudice nourished by intellectual sloth. The phrase in question is itself allusive--I assume everyone knows the source. With a humourous touch, I simply meant to turn it into a bon mot, which seems to be not very successful. Nevertheless, I am certainly to blame for ambiguity.
I do not want to dwell on the topic any longer, but upon reading your response, I may clarify one more point as regards Classical Chinese usage, hopefully to the benefit of the readers. Classical Chinese, usually embellished with metaphors, and enriched by allusions, is not supposed to be read too literally, is it? Generally speaking, this is a language that consists in mild hyperbole and strong suggestion. To read it too seriously and literally is to misread it; and all attempt to make it too plain, accurate and clear, in my opinion, is destructive to the nature of this language. In this sense I should never clarify what I meant by "以俟子期之賞", so that 子期, vague as it is, can convey a double meaning: it may either refer to connoisseurs in general, or to a literary coterie particularly dear to me.
"in any event, i don't seem to recall your extending this invitation of 以俟子期之賞 to zeke, frisson and ronald; well, actually, no such invitation whatsoever to anyone who has been contributing to this blog."--I do not intend to retort every point of you, but I have to call your attention to this poem:
贈楊素懷
滔滔天下是.知我者誠希.素懷雋俗士.緇塵未涴衣.在眾若處野.陶然獨忘機.古心更古貌.危坐山巍巍.墳典無盡藏.疊窗天日微.精思耽經術.夙與眾相違.於邑孔孟道.行世日斜暉.奮庸熙聖載.會借魯戈揮.舉世迷不返.手援天下歸.今無惛惛事.赫赫詎可祈.風雲一朝遇.魚潛化龍飛.予真局井底.明朝渺難幾.邂逅暫適願.何時能相依.綢繆百年好.百年露未晞.
自註.楊君即掬香齋主人
The fact is plain: I read Y.T.'s prose and poetry one night; I appreciated his effort and talent; I wrote a few lines to register my tender feelings of nostalgia and admiration, as a reminder of my poetical adventure in the past. Please note that nobody would use
"斤質" to "idolize" a person. "斤質", after all, is never an object of worship. :)
無意加入爭拗，不過倉海君斤質一詞應只是讚美而非崇拜yt吧？在下鄙陋，揣測倉海君斤質一詞應當出自《莊子‧徐無鬼》：莊子送葬，過惠子之墓，顧謂從者曰：「郢人堊慢其鼻端若蠅翼，使匠石斲（斮）之。匠石運斤成風，聽而斲（斮）之，盡堊而鼻不傷，郢人立不失容。宋元君聞之，召匠石曰：『嘗試為寡人為之。』匠石曰：『臣則嘗能斲之。雖然，臣之質死久矣。』自夫子之死也，吾無以為質矣，吾無與言之矣。」，另蘇軾《書文可墨竹》：「筆與子皆逝，詩今誰為新。空遺運斤質，卻吊斷弦人。」，不過這裏的爭辯也印證了幾句：「有運斤之手，無受斤之質，則其道不傳；有受斤之質，無運斤之手，則其道不知。」，那些沒有斤質又或者無斤風，甚至斤兩的朋友們，好好參詳這幾句吧！
不好意思舒兄我要"叉"開你一句(但我會好好反省你最後一句quotation)。
Anonymous, "i am not so sure why you kept forcing this spectre of "underlying msg" upon me", 因為你不明白, 1. 我並非將我對你的文字的解讀強加你身上, 而是我在你的文字中讀到文字以外的含意, 我想跟你確認; 2. 文字本身不是只有在白紙上看到的意義, 文字是表達言者思想的工具。而思想, 是立體的, 是無窮盡的。如果問題只是問題本身, 文字只是文字本身, 那文字又有甚麼可堪回味之處? 我的"underlying message", 指的是文字可以呈現一個立體的思想這一狀態; 3. 請你找一本語法書查查"don't you think"是甚麼時候用的。我不認為我冤了你。
文字和語言不同, 聽到一段不中聽的說話, 轉過頭已不記得了; 但看見不中看的文字明攤在這裡, 就能以文字作出詢問/質疑, 整個過程被記錄下來。你的對話對象不是我而是倉海君, 但我看見我不認同的文字, 作出提問, 你的回答, 我不同意, 再作出提問。我這樣至多叫"多事", 但我沒有針對你。
You are correct that we "talk" on a virtual world of internet, 但你我並非不存在。我們存在, 並被記下了。正因為這樣, 我不能像在現實世界中, 對一些我不認同的意見掩起耳朵或拂袖而去, 所以我選擇向你提問及求証。而你最後那一錘定音的"period", 就像你對看不慣的人喝罵"仆街, 收聲啦"。你憑甚麼褫奪我回應的權利? 如果你覺得我說得不對, 或沒興趣跟我討論, 你可以在這個虛擬世界對我"拂袖而去", 但你不應叫我收聲。你最後一句令我確信我是over-read了你, 但我不認為我mis-read了你。
On your sentence "sobriety": 我已在我之前的回應中道明, 簡單點說, 你想別人怎樣做, 自己應先身體力行。
我這個回應恰恰是道士兄口中的"無聊的執著", 但我不是在鬥氣, 我是"無聊的執著"。
"回味"當作"玩味", my apology of the typo.
"言者不知知者默﹐此語吾聞自老君。若是老君是知者﹐緣何自著五千文。" 口開神氣散﹐舌動是非生﹐人就是自尋煩惱的動物。嘻﹐我的確係多口﹐唔多口都唔寫咁多嘢﹐真係估唔到連這樣也會被人察覺得到。 :P 嘻﹐想起就寫就抄﹐乜我真係沾到光? 我就唔覺得我叻咗﹐最緊要有無獎先? 哈哈﹐比不知名你窒兩句﹐我就當是禮物收下了。
bildub﹐現實在何處﹐你問的就是我的憂慮呀。我起初也相信科學是可以接近真理或世界的運作模式。但是"現實"卻是存在多於一個層次之上﹐很多時在一堆人群之中﹐"現實"就是他們當時的集體意識﹐根本無論宇宙是怎樣運作也沒關係﹐關係是他們當時的集體偏見。像現在的紮鐵工會﹐你說是勞資那邊的錯﹐在局外我連紮鐵是什麼工作也不太清楚﹐作為普通市民也只會覺得困擾﹐但是社會偏偏就這麼高手高高手對一切事也潦如指掌﹐在街很多時也可聽到這些高人的偉論﹐嘻。我也自能自愧不如。
最近看BBC的某個節目﹐見班美國教會人仕居然用gap theory 話evolution 只屬虛構﹐要提倡creationism﹐夾硬話地球只得六千幾年歷史﹐話聖經的歷史才是真的﹐揾架荒舟裝起動物至係真的﹐直頭看到我靜脈曲張﹐熱血沸騰。這個世界﹐無論你講幾咁白痴嘅嘢出來﹐就會有人信。有些人相信可通過教育而令社會文明起來﹐但是問題是﹐我們的所謂教化﹐很多時候只是把我們的偏見轉移目標。不要說教育天下人﹐就連幾個小學的學生﹐要改變那思想的模式又談何容易。我相信天資﹐我相信真理是由尋找者所得﹐但是我又同時覺得所謂真理的重要性被誇大了﹐因為人的焦點往往就不在乎那樣是真﹐而是在於當時所爆發出的感覺。批評本身就是偏見的一種。
其實大部份人就會把一生的精力花在偏執之上﹐包括我。是種追求﹐是反映心內對世界的慾望﹐是把他人的想法推開﹐是種自我的認證。但是這﹐這就是腦袋運作的方法﹐我想是無可避免的。未解決? 都無辦法﹐真係飲啖茶食個包咪算。Bildub﹐還是放鬆心情﹐健康緊要~~
嘻﹐最後﹐倉兄﹐你這堆燒了十幾年﹐燒極到燒唔晒的草稿﹐仍然無人看。但估不到卻起碼引來番有趣的對話﹐生了它另一種作用。
儘管Anonymous選擇用一種比較尖銳的方式來提問，說實在我是不介意的。也許是以往得罪人太多吧，什麼針鋒相對，都厭了。刻薄成性，也總有倦鳥知還的一天，血肉橫飛，不如羽扇綸巾。
"你這堆燒了十幾年﹐燒極到燒唔晒的草稿，仍然無人看。但估不到卻起碼引來番有趣的對話﹐生了它另一種作用。"－－道士，唔通咁都唔算俾人當柴燒？
前天貼了Y.T.一篇舊作《語文教育私議》－－其實是看了上周末《新聞透視》有關中文科會考的報導，一時有感而發才貼出來的－－大家沒什麼反應，反而躲在這兒評頭品足，聚訟不休，奇怪。不要向地心發展了，我們回歸地面好嗎？
道士﹕
草未必沒人看。可能和詩徒獻醜，說個好字白灌水，批句不好又不知從何處挑骨......唯有找些可有可無的說話串串門子、搞搞聯誼吧。
以前教城亦有此風，都見怪不怪。
倉兄﹐"未焚草"就看了這麼久﹐不妨考慮另編作輯"燃柴資"﹐嘻﹐或者會有更多人睇。地面地底也沒什麼關係罷? 你上星期問我的﹐我也拖拖拉拉差不多寫好了。
凡兄﹐甚是﹐甚是。
未焚草呢個名, 令我諗起一個call晒friend, 嗌晒要跳樓, 威脅差人唔好行埋黎, 沃親就即刻跳落去, 但就硬係唔捨得去死0既無膽鄙類.(跟住下面一大班觀眾0係度鼓譟:"唔跳唔好嘥我地時間啦粉腸!")
其實你呢本詩集唔係唔好, 不過始終燒果下先至係高潮, 我仲0係度等緊呢一刻.
西口西面,
歡迎歸位，咁咪幾好，唔好再玩粗口。粗口太簡單，侮辱左你個西頭西腦。
Woot...I never thought my question will provoke so many...
"I am very amazed at his ability in Victorian English + Old School Chinese + Debate logic that defines normal definition of being "educated""
I apologize for my choice of word. I was genuinely impressed with his knowledge and his posts. Sometimes I cannot follow it at all but I truly am impressed.
Also, thanks for telling me Y.T name means 人渣??? I never thought about it that way...I was thinking its his initial. Or I am missing something again. Oh well.
I am not "設了鄧先生是demon..." I am just saying...what you wrote may not be who you really are...You may never been to a place but you can write about it as if you were there before...again, my english sucks and I apologize if you think I was patronizing him.
Peace out.
我開始有點有理說不清的感覺...嘻，Y.T.的確是initials，一直都是。我只是指出，最近有人罵他是"人渣"，我沒想到你會以為"Y.T name means 人渣"，這完全不是我的意思。
Some Belated Reflections
It appears that much of the verbal tournament so far about one virtual person--me--has its roots in anonymous's casual question: "倉海, don't you think you are obsessed with yt, idolizing him and worshipping him to such an extent that you don't see the other side of yt ?" The problem then is not the "idolizing and worshipping" itself--though of course no one need ever to idolize or worship me--but "to such an extent that you don't see the other side of yt".
Much of the verbal tournament could have been avoided, did anonymous care to speak a little further of this other side of me. 倉海君 might have seen it; or he might not. Either case, the casual question would have been satisfactorily answered. Now, normal construal suggests that by "the other side" anonymous must have meant something less than entirely bright; so, in the ensuing, let's simply call it "the dark side."
I am afraid that it would be a little tedious of me to give a confession to this dark side; and I am not prepared to. But it shall be instructive if anonymous may give a hint as to what he had in mind. For me, this dark side varies with the person who happens to be observing me. A radical writer in Inmedia may find me completely dark, and every inch darker than a black hole; a less radical one may find me dark, in that I have lent little support to Local Action so far, but not so dark, in that I have rarely called other people names; then a firm believer in economic efficiency may find me a little disturbingly dark, in that I tend to treasure outdated traditions; a populist may find me indeed very dark, because I confess to be a cultural elitist. So this darkness changes, as different persons cast their investigative eye upon me. I cannot quite say, without knowing further about the questioner, what sort of darkness he therefore intended. Perhaps what appears to anonymous to be my dark side, is not too dark, or even not dark at all, to 倉海君; in that case, it would be completely understandable that he did not see it. But this small mis-match would be all that needed to cause a whole week of verbal tournament. A little unforunate indeed.
Shall I endeavor then to prove that I am free from any darkness? Well, quite the contrary. That which appears dark to anonymous may turn out to be very dear to me; and I am every bit prepared to safe-guard it, even at the cost of being clapped with horrendous appellations. Neither Sir Whinston nor N. Chaudhuri ever changed his very low opinion of the Mahatma, even though after the end of the Raj he gradually rose to the status of a saint. The two writers may appear very dark, to this extent, to the whole world; one's judgment may very well change as soon as one cares to look a little more deeply into history. I am not to say that the dark would be completely brightened: just as the bright need not always be darkened by historical revisionists. But, that the very readiness to do evil is the cost the Florentine lover of republican liberty thought worth the paying, should put the bright and the dark into a few more shades.
If modern liberalism has any character, I would say it is first and foremost a discourse of the bright. Anonymous may want to replace liberalism with, say, neo-Confucianism, for a more local referent; to which I would not object. Of course no one can forever dwell in the dark; to get a few comrades, he must at least proffer a certain amount of the bright. Nor shall one, however, always dwell in the bright, lest he unwittingly dump all the dark upon those who must, to render his very existence possible, deal with it.
Retreat from a world of shades into a solipsistic point--from Heracleitus to Hume there seems always this temptation, and 道士 seemed to have some mature thoughts in that direction--does not always, if ever, end the predicament. I dare not say that only I am entitled to define my patch of darkness; after all, I would prefer having other people concede that what they took to be dark in me ought to be deemed quite bright. But to attempt this every minute, would only be a pursuit of sainthood--of which I am not yet jealous. Let me therefore leave the Heracleitean option open--for moments of necessity--but remain convinced, like Sir Whinston, Chaudhuri, and the Florentine lover of liberty all did, that, its appearance notwithstanding, the dark is not yet the same as the absolute bad. There is, that is, a reason for the dark's presence.
Now, this discourse on the bright and the dark may sound a little self-righteous; though that must be the nature of every apologia. Anyways, I hope the gist of anonymous's casual question is now made clear, and the real thoughts of a virtual person, known. But before I close my brief, I must remind interested parties that Y.T. are indeed my initials, and that my name is non-trivially different from "人渣." Phonetic considerations should be sufficient for a proof.
Y.T.,
如果你早點發言，"辯論"不一定會更快結束，但肯定會更有趣。
"Much of the verbal tournament could have been avoided, did anonymous care to speak a little further of this other side of me. 倉海君 might have seen it; or he might not. Either case, the casual question would have been satisfactorily answered."
我得承認，儘管我的確曾打算問anonymous何謂the other side，但最後還是自私地對此保持沉默，主要理由有二：
一．私人理由：假如我真的要否定anonymous口中關於你的dark side，你應該很清楚，單單說"我不同意"或"不，我認為這正是其光明一面"都是不夠的，我還要說出我的立場，澄清我的理由，那不免又要評論你在 Inmedia爭辯的種種議題--這對我來說絕對是噩夢，而且也不見得問題會更易解決。你在那兒的"辯論"(如果你堅持不是獨白的話)，我看來就好比歐陽峰對江南七怪，或楊過打西山一窟鬼，在實力懸殊的情況下，實難言有什麼精采的思想交鋒。覆述這些會令我情緒低落，所以我絕不會主動問他所謂the other side是啥。
二．純粹從辯論角度而言，anonymous的前提其實是"you are obsessed with yt, idolizing him and worshipping him"，不破他的前提，其結論"you don't see the other side of yt"是否定不了的。首先，如果anonymous說了你的dark side，而我則答"我不認為這叫dark side"，他就可能順水推舟地解釋，我的回應正好說明了他所謂的"you don't see(可指"理解") the other side of yt"，繼而堅持我只是"盲目祟拜"。故此問題的核心，似乎不在於你有沒有dark side，或dark side的內容，而在於彼此對dark的定義有極大分歧。我單方面否定他的"黑"為"黑"，只會更令他相信我盲目祟拜以致不分黑白，而不會回應到他的問題。說到底，除非我能改變對方的黑白觀念，否則他的觀點--即"you don't see the other side of yt"--(至少對他而言)始終無法動搖。第二，任何人都有缺點--相信你也難以否認自己亦然--如果anonymous只是泛指你不為人知的缺點，即使他沒具體說明，我也只好同意，因為說"人人都有dark side"，基本上是無懈可擊的廢話。"you don't see the other side of yt"，其實換成"you don't see the other side of XXX"也沒問題，根本沒必要反駁。
我承認自己是捨難取易，因為要指出idolizing and worshipping這前提的不實相對來說是簡單得多，如果不牽涉其他人的留言，其實我第一個回應已經解決了這問題。但抱歉的是，我自私地迴避了那個對你不利的the other side，由它曖昧地引人遐思，恕罪!
發佈留言