我突然理解到有很多人很多事，過去了其實不用惋惜。
我們長大每一個不同的階段，自有不同的性情不同的成熟程度，所以也有不同的人和圈子。人來人往，有可能是我們都看透了都長大了，覺得已經沒有需要回到那時和那些人混在一起，而且就算有改變也沒有意思，因為人類是用記憶和印象來思考的，就像洗手間的水怎過濾你心理上還是不會喝，還有已經過了很久你現在有改變也是沒意思的，每件事都有時限，沒有人能等你一生。
知道別人曾經待你好，在你最黑暗的時候給過你一點光就好。不必問不必追不必求人跟你認證，存在過的總不會消失，也因此不需要任何外在的證據。
其實再怎麼寫，都是給自己寫，但是她都不會回來。而且有些事不寫不破一寫即破，許多事還是需要留一個虛名，不然情感發洩了就要蒙上平凡的罪名，說穿了還不是像些破情歌破小說一樣喜歡用情感掩飾自己醜陋的性格缺陷，人大了就懂。
成長總有代價，無論是什麼。五年下來，應該有個交待，有個了結。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVgVEj97UsI
去看牙醫，說只有多三四個月就能脫掉牙箍，這時候我的心情是：
當初怕痛，後來覺得反正失戀了，沒關係。之後才知失戀這回算小事了。
大家拍拖分手以後，對人性可以有兩個了解：一，你還不了解人性（包括自己）；二，你心靈承受能力還不夠強。
其實重要的是反省自己有那些地方做錯，然後改好，改好就沒事。這世界上什麼人什麼事都有，也不是你自己可以控制的。不要去猜想別人如何，只要能如實的回憶一下自己的所作所為，稍作檢討和改善，那已經很好。
至於有些人覺得對方散了就很快和別人一起，我的看法是如果我之後一直單身你就很高興？這是什麼心態？
或多或少，五年間可能也算有過一些機會但是後來也沒成事，除了自己的性格問題未完全清除外，其實最大問題是我根本沒有放下。現在她的東西我也沒有留下，或是送人或是回收，留下來的只有一本書和一張明信片。我決定，脫了牙還要去漂一漂，不做白不做。
五年了，痛快的來個了結。
從前的日色變得慢，車、馬、郵件都慢。一生只夠愛一個人。–木心
I was reminded that if one is to excel in a certain discipline, one would need to be in that discipline’s circle, having friends, support and help because one day you would eventually need them if you are to succeed.
At the start I thought no, I can do everything by myself; but now, yes, perhaps. Was very glad to finally be able to blend in with the circle as felt tonight.
Great win by Robin Lai tonight, I remembered my own experience of playing Alberto Muniz, a very resilient player. At several times anger, disappointment and frustration would kick in because he would keep finding some only moves to keep the position balanced for a very long time, and my emotions got the better of me.
Sometimes it’s important to see the others doing it with your very eyes so that one day you can say to yourself “Guess it’s not so difficult after all”. That’s how we all learn things from the scratch.
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr98204.aspx?art=4&lan=1&wi=821
以棋觀人，可得以下幾項結論；為觀為省，以棋修心蓋合棋道。
常人下棋問題有七，或多或少悉隨尊便，此統計蓋為在統合處理而得出較有實驗的結論：
貪-Materialism
欲-Wanting
妄-Perfectionism
執-Egotism
怒-Looseness
虛-Blinking
羈-Thinking
貪-Materialism
常人下棋喜歡數棋子，如果被對手吃了棋就覺得錯了，事實是棋子多少和對錯無關。如果能勝利，那麼付出多少棋子也是值得的。而愛因斯坦作例，e=mc2，那麼給對手吃掉一些棋子，換取攻擊的機會，然後贏回一些棋子；或者棄掉一些棋子換取更靈活的防守也可。何況棋子雖有價值，但各也有不可取代的獨特步法，等齊量觀可能不妥。
欲-Wanting
下棋如果只想著勝負就容易失敗因有外壓，情況就如Learning Task vs Performance Task 一樣。所以和局時應尋求稍稍優勢而非採取暴烈著法，只要是人下棋壓力下總有人犯錯；敗局時取守門員的心態就算不能得分只要守住也算勝利；勝勢時也不妨學習享受勝利的過程。
妄-Perfectionism
很多時候我們對自己強求對人強求不過是缺乏信心的表現，勝了還要勝得厲害使有很多不相關的念頭進入腦內，得一想二。也會有時想象自己喜歡的敬仰的人會如何處理，不過是對某種權威的幻想。信心能有效讓自己務實面對，也可以一路應付各種挑戰，只要務實不求虛榮。何況，很多時下棋都只是隨機應變，不可能一眼看到尾，像眺望大海。
執-Egotism
只看到自己想做的而看不見別人，忘了是兩個人的遊戲，結果往往會低估對手的威脅而輸掉。其實和拳擊一樣，時打時躲。對於此，我們可以先問問自己對方的意圖，從而推論自己的棋步，此等倒後思維往往更容易讓人得出答案，何況棋無客觀，就算有也不是當局能得出的。唯一方法是兩人相對的主觀，這樣才能比較客觀。
怒-Looseness
往往棋局變化不如人意時，就會讓人惱火。這有兩個解釋：一是棋局變化太快而人的主觀意識往往追不上停於自己還感覺良好的一刻，二是集中能不夠開始疲倦。其實棋只是棋，通常閒得可憐腦袋好但是不好得能賺大錢做大事的才去下棋，要意識到多餘情感其實無用，何況人不是電腦，要懂得適時放鬆。
虛-Blinking
在棋局不斷發展時總有一些時刻比較關鍵，需要作出一些重要的決定，但是人們卻往往Auto Pilot視而不見。其實細心感覺，當某些情況已經無法用一般的判斷繼續時就需要想想是否需要深思。下棋是判斷的遊戲，推遲有必要的判斷不一定就能令自己的判斷變得更好。一動一靜是必要，之所以動是為了靜。
羈-Thinking
所謂思考常使人覺得問題必能想出，但是很多時問題新而認知舊，思考時憑過往認知不一定就能解決問題，往往只會將問題變質扭曲，是Maslow所謂的你有鎚只會將所有問題看成釘子。人要相信自己的直覺，直覺不一定是無理，更多是當中有深入的判斷。幽默也有當場發作不死板兮兮的好處，值得一試。
終於，我們看棋最重要的是，原來人不是電腦。不可以無止境的訓練、不可以不受心理的影響、不可以每每也能找出最好的一步、不可能不以組織和關係去理解下棋。（電腦不理解只計算，計算的基礎都是人教的）所以到了這個後電腦時代，我越是覺得原來終於也無法像一台電腦，意志不可能勝過客觀，個體也有局限。惟有用棋來反映出自己的問題，好好的像一個人一樣去學去理解去試去做，承認自己的弱點虛心學習。
曾經以為這種所謂虛懷若谷的想法會令人感覺虛無而缺乏立場，但是原來不會，知道這種不確定的本質才是真實的一面才能更貼近真相，會教人心平氣和。
雖然我們都不是聖人，但是心仍然嚮往成為一個更好的人。
有許多個夜晚，其實沒有什麼理由，只是突然好想去海邊走走。
記得幾米問過一個問題，他說為什麼戀人們都喜歡看海。
我有好好想過這個看似無聊的問題，答案是，其實在蒼蒼大海前只兩個人看盡一片無崖，本質就和在茫茫宇宙中兩個人的相依為命一樣。
人來人往，有時看著海但願所想的人安好。寂寞時看著海看著一片寂寞，將自己的寂寞放進大自然的寂寞，寄怪地又不再覺得那麼寂寞。
Food of the day for thought:
Daniel Dennett’s seven tools for thinking
Cognitive scientist and philosopher Daniel Dennett is one of America’s foremost thinkers. In this extract from his new book, he reveals some of the lessons life has taught him
Daniel Dennett: ‘Often the word “surely” is as good as a blinking light locating a weak point in the argument.’ Photograph: Peter Yang/August
Daniel Dennett
1 USE YOUR MISTAKES
We have all heard the forlorn refrain: “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!” This phrase has come to stand for the rueful reflection of an idiot, a sign of stupidity, but in fact we should appreciate it as a pillar of wisdom. Any being, any agent, who can truly say: “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!” is standing on the threshold of brilliance. We human beings pride ourselves on our intelligence, and one of its hallmarks is that we can remember our previous thinking and reflect on it – on how it seemed, on why it was tempting in the first place and then about what went wrong.
I know of no evidence to suggest that any other species on the planet can actually think this thought. If they could, they would be almost as smart as we are. So when you make a mistake, you should learn to take a deep breath, grit your teeth and then examine your own recollections of the mistake as ruthlessly and as dispassionately as you can manage. It’s not easy. The natural human reaction to making a mistake is embarrassment and anger (we are never angrier than when we are angry at ourselves) and you have to work hard to overcome these emotional reactions.
Try to acquire the weird practice of savouring your mistakes, delighting in uncovering the strange quirks that led you astray. Then, once you have sucked out all the goodness to be gained from having made them, you can cheerfully set them behind you and go on to the next big opportunity. But that is not enough: you should actively seek out opportunities just so you can then recover from them.
In science, you make your mistakes in public. You show them off so that everybody can learn from them. This way, you get the benefit of everybody else’s experience, and not just your own idiosyncratic path through the space of mistakes. (Physicist Wolfgang Pauli famously expressed his contempt for the work of a colleague as “not even wrong”. A clear falsehood shared with critics is better than vague mush.)
This, by the way, is another reason why we humans are so much smarter than every other species. It is not so much that our brains are bigger or more powerful, or even that we have the knack of reflecting on our own past errors, but that we share the benefits our individual brains have won by their individual histories of trial and error.
I am amazed at how many really smart people don’t understand that you can make big mistakes in public and emerge none the worse for it. I know distinguished researchers who will go to preposterous lengths to avoid having to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. Actually, people love it when somebody admits to making a mistake. All kinds of people love pointing out mistakes.
Generous-spirited people appreciate your giving them the opportunity to help, and acknowledging it when they succeed in helping you; mean-spirited people enjoy showing you up. Let them! Either way we all win.
2 RESPECT YOUR OPPONENT
Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticising the views of an opponent? If there are obvious contradictions in the opponent’s case, then you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view – and then dump on them. But the search for hidden contradictions often crosses the line into nitpicking, sea-lawyering and outright parody. The thrill of the chase and the conviction that your opponent has to be harbouring a confusion somewhere encourages uncharitable interpretation, which gives you an easy target to attack.
But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody’s time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one’s opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport’s rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…
3 THE “SURELY” KLAXON
When you’re reading or skimming argumentative essays, especially by philosophers, here is a quick trick that may save you much time and effort, especially in this age of simple searching by computer: look for “surely” in the document and check each occurrence. Not always, not even most of the time, but often the word “surely” is as good as a blinking light locating a weak point in the argument.
Why? Because it marks the very edge of what the author is actually sure about and hopes readers will also be sure about. (If the author were really sure all the readers would agree, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning.) Being at the edge, the author has had to make a judgment call about whether or not to attempt to demonstrate the point at issue, or provide evidence for it, and – because life is short – has decided in favour of bald assertion, with the presumably well-grounded anticipation of agreement. Just the sort of place to find an ill-examined “truism” that isn’t true!
4 ANSWER RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
Just as you should keep a sharp eye out for “surely”, you should develop a sensitivity for rhetorical questions in any argument or polemic. Why? Because, like the use of “surely”, they represent an author’s eagerness to take a short cut. A rhetorical question has a question mark at the end, but it is not meant to be answered. That is, the author doesn’t bother waiting for you to answer since the answer is so obvious that you’d be embarrassed to say it!
Here is a good habit to develop: whenever you see a rhetorical question, try – silently, to yourself – to give it an unobvious answer. If you find a good one, surprise your interlocutor by answering the question. I remember a Peanuts cartoon from years ago that nicely illustrates the tactic. Charlie Brown had just asked, rhetorically: “Who’s to say what is right and wrong here?” and Lucy responded, in the next panel: “I will.”
5 EMPLOY OCCAM’S RAZOR
Attributed to William of Ockham (or Ooccam), a 14th-century English logician and philosopher, this thinking tool is actually a much older rule of thumb. A Latin name for it is lex parsimoniae, the law of parsimony. It is usually put into English as the maxim “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”.
The idea is straightforward: don’t concoct a complicated, extravagant theory if you’ve got a simpler one (containing fewer ingredients, fewer entities) that handles the phenomenon just as well. If exposure to extremely cold air can account for all the symptoms of frostbite, don’t postulate unobserved “snow germs” or “Arctic microbes”. Kepler’s laws explain the orbits of the planets; we have no need to hypothesise pilots guiding the planets from control panels hidden under the surface. This much is uncontroversial, but extensions of the principle have not always met with agreement.
One of the least impressive attempts to apply Occam’s razor to a gnarly problem is the claim (and provoked counterclaims) that postulating a God as creator of the universe is simpler, more parsimonious, than the alternatives. How could postulating something supernatural and incomprehensible be parsimonious? It strikes me as the height of extravagance, but perhaps there are clever ways of rebutting that suggestion.
I don’t want to argue about it; Occam’s razor is, after all, just a rule of thumb, a frequently useful suggestion. The prospect of turning it into a metaphysical principle or fundamental requirement of rationality that could bear the weight of proving or disproving the existence of God in one fell swoop is simply ludicrous. It would be like trying to disprove a theorem of quantum mechanics by showing that it contradicted the axiom “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”.
6 DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME ON RUBBISH
Sturgeon’s law is usually expressed thus: 90% of everything is crap. So 90% of experiments in molecular biology, 90% of poetry, 90% of philosophy books, 90% of peer-reviewed articles in mathematics – and so forth – is crap. Is that true? Well, maybe it’s an exaggeration, but let’s agree that there is a lot of mediocre work done in every field. (Some curmudgeons say it’s more like 99%, but let’s not get into that game.)
A good moral to draw from this observation is that when you want to criticise a field, a genre, a discipline, an art form …don’t waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the good stuff or leave it alone. This advice is often ignored by ideologues intent on destroying the reputation of analytic philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology, macroeconomics, plastic surgery, improvisational theatre, television sitcoms, philosophical theology, massage therapy, you name it.
Let’s stipulate at the outset that there is a great deal of deplorable, second-rate stuff out there, of all sorts. Now, in order not to waste your time and try our patience, make sure you concentrate on the best stuff you can find, the flagship examples extolled by the leaders of the field, the prize-winning entries, not the dregs. Notice that this is closely related to Rapoport’s rules: unless you are a comedian whose main purpose is to make people laugh at ludicrous buffoonery, spare us the caricature.
7 BEWARE OF DEEPITIES
A deepity (a term coined by the daughter of my late friend, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum) is a proposition that seems both important and true – and profound – but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous. On one reading, it is manifestly false, but it would be earth-shaking if it were true; on the other reading, it is true but trivial. The unwary listener picks up the glimmer of truth from the second reading, and the devastating importance from the first reading, and thinks, Wow! That’s a deepity.
Here is an example (better sit down: this is heavy stuff): Love is just a word.
Oh wow! Cosmic. Mind-blowing, right? Wrong. On one reading, it is manifestly false. I’m not sure what love is – maybe an emotion or emotional attachment, maybe an interpersonal relationship, maybe the highest state a human mind can achieve – but we all know it isn’t a word. You can’t find love in the dictionary!
We can bring out the other reading by availing ourselves of a convention philosophers care mightily about: when we talk about a word, we put it in quotation marks, thus: “love” is just a word. “Cheeseburger” is just a word. “Word” is just a word. But this isn’t fair, you say. Whoever said that love is just a word meant something else, surely. No doubt, but they didn’t say it.
Not all deepities are quite so easily analysed. Richard Dawkins recently alerted me to a fine deepity by Rowan Williams, the then archbishop of Canterbury, who described his faith as “a silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark”.
I leave the analysis of this as an exercise for you.
This is an edited extract from Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking by Daniel Dennett, published by Allen Lane (£20)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract
其實每年生日想到的不是慶祝，反正習慣了一個人，想到的是又離死近一步了。我想我們小時候都很想快點長大，長得差不多大就變成了老去。其實多數是三十多才會這樣覺得，不過回想一下，其實我十歲就已經知道自己的心將會永遠都留在這個年紀，所以在還沒有離開那些二十的日子，就知道自己會懷念。
話說回來，怕死而勇，並無矛盾。有很多人都可能會有這樣的經驗，覺得自己生日或者特別的日子沒有人和自己分享，是浪費掉。但是其實如果你覺得那些日子是浪費了，那麼你的其他日子就不浪費？熱愛生命，浪費光陰；誠不誠實，滑不滑稽？
為了不讓時間溜走，決定定下三個目標，十年來完成。三個比較務實，無三不成幾，也比較容易。
1.取得碩士學位/正在攻讀博士
撫心自問，其實我除了會考稍為努力，高考和大學根本沒有好好集中。當然，其實學習不集中和自己的性格以及濕疹大有關係，但是我在自己的能力範圍以內沒有盡本份。如今二十有二，身體看中醫加上運動調理好，讀書上也算稍通，身健心明，回頭一看，覺得很慚愧。
一直以來也想在研究香港政治上有所貢獻並以此為志業，奈何力有不棣，惟有先工作幾年養成良好的工作習慣和能力，再回去或有不少進步。說實話都這個年紀了，該明白很多事都不在自己控制範圍，只是有待。
因為有待，所以也不打算拍畢業照。可以出席畢業禮，畢竟受啟蒙不少，作為學生應份表達敬意。只是一向都不喜歡拍照，也覺得好造作，沒有好好讀過書就算能畢業也不值一提。想留待碩士時才照，為製造一個懸念給自己個借口。
現在我努力找工作，不斷課餘考車牌學外語准備GRE，就是在等個機會。
2.考取國際大師頭銜
過去不斷盲下狂下，後來看過一些心理學的書，知道這種為自己定下不合理的目標、過份將成功歸於自己能力而失敗歸於運氣、覺得一定都是命定的想法無補於事很常見。
香港的體育行精英管理，這沒問題，問題是它後來擴到去一個質素管理的地步。確保香港的運動員一定能拿到錢，但是又要求你有區際水平，你又不能自己出資比賽因為有贊助商合約。如果沒有人帶頭打出個孔，將來沒有人能過。
雖然我能力不高，但總希望下一代好希望各投所好。所以我想帶頭做點成績來，假你一生都只將精神投在一兩個活動上，如果都做不出成績來未免太丟人。
現在電腦發達，資源不缺，缺的是你如果有系統有自制力有恆心有誠勁去處理這一切，給總會請寫封信，然後往香港大學和中文大學的體育學系寄，自己繼續練習，看看如何。
3.找個穩定對象
過去我性格燥動易怒自大自卑，值得單身。
性格的使然純粹是每人遭遇的不同。每個人經歷不同，自然產出不同。人往往覺得別人不能改變，或者萬變不離其中，那純粹是自我中心，以己猜人。嘴說同情，心則不然，人之常情。
如今觀念長成，性格修好，我認為自己值得有個對象。值不值得是個問題，的確，能不能擁有愛情是有值不值得的一回事。愛生於主觀，成於客觀，毀於主客衝突。
都這麼大個人，明白各人也有自由意志，犯不著像之前一樣誠惶誠恐，迫不來。人總傾向穩定的穩重的對象，尤如船希望靠風平浪靜的港口。
不是不求，只是有所等待。
當年我讀到瀧岡阡表那刻就意識到，「非敢緩也，蓋有待也」就總結了人的一生。
The news that the CO2 level reached 400ppm came as quite a shock and awe to me.
Perhaps it is death that makes people selfish, not the otherwise that says death gives life meanings. Life’s quick and once over, so you use anything that seems most convenient to you, not caring about the consequence, not needing to bear responsibility for whatever that comes up to you, for your life is too short to see the last days of men.
I could not help but wonder, that if realistically, people can soon be living forever, perhaps that would have given them second thoughts.
有人也許會說，分開不太好，其實也不然，有時自己一個人也沒不好。現代什麼都追什麼都趕，跟車太貼撞得碎碎。我記得我在宿舍一年其實挺好，自己一個人有很多事都想得通。如果退休，兩口子在不用照顧的頭幾年自己住住看，其實很不錯。
在某處看過，人一生要活其實所要的東西不多，所以有空就丟點東西。清出空間清心寡慾，可以省點錢也愛護地球，給自己一點點活動的範圍而不是給困住。Fight Club也有說過，不重複。
其實是會改變的，你分手以後會有些Compensatory Effort，變成之前你想做的那個人，但是又不完全是，大概是某些Hybrid，你自己的詮釋。例如我喜歡上打Scrabble因為她打得很好，喜歡整潔和整齊，比較冷靜客觀也是之後養成的。不過也有很多事沒變，例如衣著打扮還是很土很隨便，花時間自己一個呆在家等等。Pros and Cons。
撿拾舊物有對自己的歷史考古的意味，有哪些變了也有哪些不變，買的當時是怎麼想，發生過什麼事。除此之外也要有決心和判斷，非常有趣。我看著家裡三副Scrabble，過了四五年才開始了解為什麼分手之後當時對Scrabble著了魔。三副不同的款式但是同樣的遊戲，除了在家打根本沒碰過，三副真的好浪費
這天丟掉了不少東西，有些傭人喜歡就送她。例如電筒，小時候常被父母打，之後躲在被子裡不敢出去但又怕黑，所以喜歡買電筒覺得好有安全感，後來太多。
之前的手機，還有之前的短訊在。不過人已經不在，留著也沒意思，電池也早丟了不能用也難配，裡邊的東西多數沒法翻出來。其實重要的是她現在在你身邊，不在的話看多幾遍也沒用，能改變自己爭取未來才重要，也不一定要同一個人。現在等有空拿去回收。你不曾擁有什麼，所以也無法失去。生命也不是虛無的，不一定擁有，也可以分享。
至於兩張SIM一張是當時的，另一張是當時想結識異性同台(3)所以開的，後來想起其實又浪費金錢又傻。簽約時十七歲付了一百元，後來才知合約要十八歲才有效力要我再簽新約，當時已經知道傻了所以寧願放棄那一百元也不願再簽，只是虛榮的問題，當時一個月八十元可不少。
這些是聽著要Chok口音考會考，現在看來是錢鍾書的「駭而笑」，只想著說話而不是把話說好，典型不要臉而偏愛面子，真丟人，看著也不好意思。還有送她看的Crime and Punishment，她替我包好送回來。但是現在我都不讀，當時買去不過是裝傻的面子問題。大家都意淫著對方很有品味好高級，情侶們聽音樂會看電影吃飯等等，好貴。不過其實最少我自己比較低級。
越拾越丟越發覺小時候太貪心太要臉太蠢，感覺像你讀舊日的筆記發覺自己的醜陋一樣。東西丟了不少，也不少雞肋，不過都丟掉吧，如果你這些年來都沒怎用過，又何苦繼續只為了自己的方便/不方便而空留著。
太多東西分心，之前物質不夠是問題，現在物質太多反而要排除它們是問題。其它的東西不想了，做人坐這望那到底多會一事無成。如果窮一生集中做好一件事，能有點點的成就，那就已經很不錯了。
最後Randomly送上一幅上載相片時看見的自己貼過的舊圖：
Recent Comments