石像如是說

我是列寧像，坐落在列寧館外。靜靜地遙望著聖彼德廣場。我的使命是把列寧的精神流傳下來，供萬世景仰。唉，說起來威風得很；事實上，我還只不過是一尊石像。一個革命家，不﹑該說是一個人的精神能長存百世而不朽，所依靠的決然不是沙石造出來的肖像，而是他本人的思想和對大地的貢獻。這顯淺的道理，偏生人類就是想不明白；害得我要無休止無了期地站在這雲石台上，終日與白鴿為伍。

我站在這兒已有六十多年了﹔彫造我的石匠早已化為塵土，成為其他石匠造像的石料。同樣地，我的身驅也懷著不少先人的血肉和灰骨。我的手，塑自百多年前一名入侵俄國的法國砲兵的骨灰；我的腳，黏合自數十年前在紅軍革命下的帝室血肉。而我的心和脊骨，則是為祖國捐軀的烈士鮮血凝合而成的－至少，造我的石匠曾這樣告訴我。

但是，在我身上，難道就只能找到創造歷史，刻劃時代的人們嗎？我背負著的，難道就僅僅是一個當代偉人的精神嗎？恐怕不然。我本是大地的塵土﹔而大地並不是英雄和偉人獨有的安息之所。歷朝歷代，有多少人曾努力地生活過，力盡才倒在大地的懷裡？這些無名的人們，沒有想過要在歷史青策留名，也沒有期望去改變天地及人類社會的法則。他們就像我一樣，沈默頑強地耕耘著大地；完成使命後，他們也靜悄悄地回歸塵土去。千萬年來，他們都是這般出生，入世，身死，復道﹔比起這勞什子的什麼「不朽長傳的列寧精神」，他們更配被塑成石像，給世人景仰。畢竟，他們的血肉就是大地的石料﹔他們的刻苦和堅忍就是大地的精神。

可笑的是，人們卻不明白這道理，硬要把些不切實際的奇想刻在大地的沙石上。羅馬帝王那些「屹立千古」的石肖像，不也被年月與風霜打破了嗎？一代名城巴比倫，她的光輝不也被風沙和河水沖淡而消逝嗎？難道我這尊石像就能例外？然而，愚昧的人們，就只能看見眼前的事物。他們只看到人會出生，入世，身死，卻看不到生命循環的復道精神。他們窮盡智慧與勞力，強行把自己的名字延續下去，就是為了跟時間競一日之長短。在畏懼死亡的驅使下，立像以被供拜者有之，怪力亂神者有之，麻醉於聲色玩樂者有之。他們害怕死亡及虛無，更害怕死後被忘掉。千年以來，人們漸漸忘記了生存的本義，而埋首在所謂的死後世界。他們不再默默耕耘，安心生活在大地的懷裡﹔他們也不再為將來打算，給下一代詶籌劃更好的生活。他們就只會活在死亡的視野下，把墓穴，寢陵建造得越發宏偉，把活人的財富都帶進大地裡。人，就是這般愚蠢與可悲。活著的時候，他們已被死亡征服了。那些宏偉的墓穴，跟我這尊花巧的石像一樣，不過是人類愚昧，軟弱，和害怕死亡的結晶品而已。

我觀看著人們的愚昧，看著他們把自己刻在沙石上，妄想著能永恆地在他人的記憶中生存下下去﹔花巧點說，就是流傳著自己的精神。我盼望六十多年了，卻仍然呆在這兒。我夏天就只能數白鴿，冬天就只能眺雪景。再不然就是給途人指點。可是，他們指點的並非石像內這些大地的沙石和歷代耕耘者的血汗，而是外頭這具帶著死亡和恐懼的列寧像相。他們甚至不把我視作石像，而把我當作列寧。他們一邊望著我，一邊幻想著列寧的事蹟，然後再叫他們的兒女引以為榜樣。真是食古不化，盲目愚昧的人們呀！我故非列寧，也不是他的廟宇。唉﹗

我每天都在昐望﹐希望可以從這雲石台階退下來﹐結束這亳無意義的「祟高使命」。千萬年前﹐我就知道沒有東西能恆久不變。我從被樹立的那天起﹐就一直等待著被敲碎的一天。今年是第七十年了。大地依然是靜悄悄的﹐人們仍在發白日夢。一切都像老模樣﹔然而﹐我卻嗅到天地變遷的氣息。我嗅到了人們不滿的情緒﹐嗅到他們夢醒看到現實的驚訝。過不多久﹐人們結集在聖彼得廣場前﹐喊著改革的口號。最後﹐幾個年青人跑到我跟前﹐舉起銅錘﹐亳不猶疑地把我打碎。他們把我棄置在一旁﹐倒像是叫我好見証他們似的。

我本以為人們打碎我去重歸大地的精神。但我躺在一旁﹐卻發現有些不對勁。把我推下來後﹐他們沒有擊碎我先前站著的雲石台。反之﹐他們塑造出更多的石像﹐一尊一尊的陳列著﹐供人朝拜景仰。它們都跟我一樣﹐同出於大地的泥塵。被供放在最高處的那尊﹐正是那「帶領人們步向自由」的英雄。這彷彿正是七十多年前的光景：當年軀著的是沙皇﹐被拖上台的是我。唯一不同的是這位「英雄像」前的其他石像而已。唉﹐究竟要到什麼時侯人們才懂得打破這些虛設的精神枷瑣呢？

列寧死了﹐真正的死了﹔支配著﹐荼毒著年青人們的思想也結束了。然而﹐人類的愚昧還是不燮。人始終是幻想家﹐始終是陶醉於光輝和榮耀的浪漫主義者。舊的夢剛破碎﹐人們就立即發新的白日夢了。一場場的美夢﹐一尊尊石像﹐一座座的廟宇﹐一種種的精祌﹐究竟還要打破多少次？這些不切實際﹐毫不務實的空想﹐到何年何月才會歇止？要再待過多少年月變遷﹐人們才會懂得精神二字的真義？

這幾道問題或許有確實肯定的答案吧﹐但我管不著了。看著這些可悲的夢想家﹐樹立著一尊二尊新的石像﹐我只能對著他們的先人 － 也就是我身上和身邊的泥塵 － 無奈地苦笑。以往﹐人們只會把那些「英雄」﹐「偉人」塑在石上作精祌鴉片。現在﹐人們把金錢﹐名利﹐玩樂﹐學分等都視為崇拜及追隨的對象：耕耘者只顧收獲﹐領導者只顧名利﹐處世者只顧玩樂﹐求學者只顧學分。人們已忘掉了生存和做每件事的本義了。如此看來﹐石像只會越造越多﹐天道離人們也只會越來越遠﹐而粉碎石像更變成了神話。可悲﹑可嘆啊﹗

沈醉於鴉片的人們啊﹐但願你們永遠醉下去﹐在死前別要醒過來。否則﹐你們只會看見自己的無知及愚昧﹐惱恨自己把人生浪費在崇拜和追隨那些虛幻而又沒意義的石像之上。且待你們化為塵土﹐成為大地一部份時才再細嚼大地精神的真義吧！

數字人生

近日對『數字化』這現象極為反感。無論討論些甚麼﹐提問些甚麼﹐甚至是閒談也好﹐人們總是以數字回答。

『他學識淵博嗎﹖』答曰﹕『當然﹗他會考高校拿多少多少分﹐大學畢業學分又是如何如何的高。』

『他事業有成嗎﹖』答曰﹕『當然﹐他有多少份工要見﹐起薪點又有多少多少。』

『他人品好嗎﹖』答曰﹕『不錯呀﹐他時常大宴親朋﹐一擲就是多少錢﹐毫不吝惜。』

姑且不論以上答案的邏輯荒誤。難道除了這些虛無和沒意義的數字以外﹐已沒有東西值得人們去著緊了嗎﹖學識難道已被淪為拿學分的工具﹖事業難道是為了金錢而存在﹖如此數字化﹐為數字而生存 ﹑為學分而學習﹑為金錢而求職﹐簡直是本末倒置。

再者﹐人性變得數字化﹐美術﹑思哲﹑文藝等不能數字化的東西就難免被棄置一旁。然而﹐抒發情感和表達思想卻是人性的根源。以此觀之﹐數字已慢慢蠶食我們的人性﹐逐漸把人類機械化。橫觀一眾同窗﹐他們形形役役所為何事﹖他們只懂追逐那些虛無的數字﹐早已忘掉除成績和求職外還有天地衡宇和人性﹔他們更沒有意識要去追求智慧﹑摸索人生。久而久之﹐他們便淪為空有學識和金錢﹐沒有思想文化與智慧的蠻夷。

這個也許是社會的錯﹐而非他們的錯吧。但錯在誰並沒有關係。我還是被困在這群膚淺的白痴高才生之中。說他們膚淺其實已經便宜了他們。若實說實話﹐我會以『空洞』二字去形容這群蠻夷。

作為堂堂思想家﹑滿腔文化﹐卻被逼與這些戎狄共處一堂﹐言語﹑文化﹑人生理念﹑思維等全然不通。而跟這些戎狄打交道更可說是對文化和智慧的莫大侮辱。所以嘛﹐我還是對月自酌﹐把棧跟長夜談天算了。

當然﹐也不是所有人都是如此。我自己既是例外﹐女友亦然。所以也難怪我這麼喜歡她。孤獨路上﹐總還會有知音作同路人的。

問征夫以前路

舟搖搖以輕颺，風飄飄而吹衣，
問征夫以前路，恨晨光之熹微。
-- 節錄自《歸去來辭》

命之船不能無止息的在浪海中頭出頭沒，而要有一可停泊歸依之所；而這必起於對生命原鄉的嚮往，生命之船當航向此生命之原鄉，否則生命之船即不成為一生命之船。無生命原鄉之嚮往則輕舟之搖亦將成動盪，有生命原鄉之嚮往，則迴返之機既露，則雖動盪亦只是輕舟之搖，何所罣礙？如此說來，亦可以是乘風而行，亦可以是為風所阻，端看生命之帆操在何處也。

生命原鄉契機既起，遂有此「問」，如此一問，而以前之路竟是異化之途，悚然驚懼，生命的異化所挾帶而出的竟是漆黑一團。不免恨悔，即此恨悔，生命終在漆黑一團中開啟了新的可能。「可能」即漸邁向自由。由這個「可能」，故得見堂堂之宇，得見坦坦之門，生命由是而歡躍。「可能」帶來了「希望」，「希望」邁向了「自由」。「自由」是回到生命的原鄉。生命的原鄉不是形上的荒原，而是生機洋溢的存在交往。這裡有的是純真樸實的生命之酣暢，童僕歡迎，稚子候門。

生命存在的交往途徑雖已荒蕪，但生命之本根仍然存在，既然存在，其交往之可能當下即可展開。生命當下實存的交往，使人回到自身隨即擁有生命提攜的勇氣，有此提攜，生命當下便是豐盈的。生命之甘泉由是而開啟，自己開之、引之、酌之，因此，生命生出一分閒情，這分閒情使得自家生命能有一分悠游自得之樂。原屬「迷執」，故不可依倚；「覺、解」既至，則當下自由。此自由是生命束縛之解開，此是形而上之解開。如此解開，當下平易而安然。

「迷執」在身，往而不返，如此把捉雖多，亦是貧困。當下「覺解」，居處雖小，以其平易，是以能得「安居」。安居何處，只是「生命與生命的真實存在交往」而已。能擺脫迷執而安居者﹐何說是復歸養生培元之道矣。

Time and Space

it is said that time and space are criterions for phenomena, and phenomena are basis for all dialectic axioms. and thus, time and space are necessary limitations for all things. this, of course, comes from Kant's transcendental idealism in his book Critique of Pure Reason.

yet i do not agree. there are things that cannot be bound by space and time. spirit and thoughts, affections and loyalty, values and justice.. these things transcend time and space, and would exist independent of phenomenal abstractions. the reason is simple: these "things" preceed logic and are axioms in themselves. it is with these tools and precognitions that man make judgments and dialectic syntheses. like time and space, these qualities of reality exist prenatally. and along with them and space, these qualities are used and exercised for daily phenomenal abstractions. another way to look at it is that these qualities are measurements and precepts and not phenomena, and are hence not available for abstraction.

and so it is. time and space can only limit phenomena, but not spirits and love. never, little baby.

Love

as promised, i am taking a stab and writing a little treatise on love. throughout my many years i have felt different aspects of love. familial love, brotherly love, elderly love, obsessive love, emotional and erotic love, and many more. the many facets of love, all or them real and genuine, would often contradict each other. and thus frankly, i cannot tell you what love is. i cannot tell you what love means. but i can tell you what love isn't, and what love does not mean. and from those excluded impossibilities, i can tell you what love should encompass, what it should include and what beauty it should hold therein.

this very question had been asked by the ancient greeks aeons ago. modern people would probably scorn at that notion, dispensing love as a mere personal taste and affection, and a spur of "feelings". while love may include those affections and feelings, do you not think that love is very limited and dry if that is all that love means? if love means exactly that, would we not use "love" and "feelings" interchangably as synonyms? but no, we don't. and that very fact points to the obvious truth that love is much much more than mere feelings and affections.

in c. s. lewis' book "the four loves", he attempts to reemphasize the ancient greek notion of love. for the ancients, love has four main facets: philia, storge, eros, agape. it is a comprehensive and umbrella encompassment of love, rather than a linguistic and succinct definition. the ancients know that love is not a matter for dialectic discussions. it is more or less a subject of empirical experiences. and so, the greeks outlines four possible types of experiences and relationships that would incur that notion of love. and these four types of experiences then become what is known as the four pillars of love. they are pillars because a long-lasting and genuine love must have each of the four facets within. they are fundamental and reinforce each other.. as i shall discuss in the following..

philia is a love of familiarity. while it can also be used in the context of "i love chemistry" or "i love my pillow", it is usually used in the context of knowing a person and having an affection towards each other because of that habitual understanding. it is a love that is built on time, habits, understanding, and thus imply mutual respect and tolerance.

storge is brotherly/sisterly love. it is a love that is founded on metaphysical bonds. it is a love that is shared because of a formal state of relationship (including friendship). that is to say, a person loves her boyfriend exclusively because he is her boyfriend, and therefore no others. storge thus imply fidelity and bonds, followed by a set code of responsibilities and ethics.

eros is the facet of love that is most comprehensive for modern people. eros is the emotional affections, the burning feelings and passions (well, the ancient greeks actually meant sexual love by eros), between a couple. while it signifies the feelings and passions, it also implies the frail nature of such carnal affections. this is why storge and philia preceeds eros, providing it a structural and formal basis. without these basis, men and women are no different from beasts on all fours, hunting for or flirting to the next prey for mating. this is exactly why i abhor the concept of regarding love as a mere affection, and then proceed to measure every relationship by a matter of "feelings". it is only a small part of love, and definitely not the entire context of love.

agape is the greatest love of all, according to the greeks. originally intended to decribe the love of the city state or nation, agape is the love for which a person is willing to take up arms and sacrifice himself. in medieval era, this facet of "selfless, self-giving love" is used to describe the theological love that Christ has shown. it is then extended to describe a devoted love, wherein a person is willing to sacrifice herself and become one in spirit with love itself. it is a concept that had eluded most modern people...

in a nutshell, love should encompass all four facets: philia, the love of familiarity and understanding; storge, the love from bonds and fidelity and trust; eros, the exclusive feelings and affections between two people; and agape, the selfless devotion each person renders to another, which fulfills the physical kinship or relationship with a metaphysical commitment. so.. next time when you think you are in love, think again. can you envision yourself sharing all these four facets with the person you are looking at? was it a mere familiarity? was it just simple kinship? was it mere feelings and a spur of passion? think clearly, before you wake up and realized you have erred, and have permanently marred your conscience as well as someone's heart.

Time, Constancy and Change

both Kant and Russell define time as a constraint for the identification and classification of phenomena. and yet time itself is meaningless unless there is something that abides the constraints that it imposes. that is to say, unless there are variances with respect to time, time itself is a trivial and meaningless property, and not a constraint.

and there are variances that depends on time. namely, all changes and constancy imply a time span. when we see something and define something, we assume constancy. when we describe something and expect something, we assume change. and so, time is an inherent and prenatal concept rooted in our cognitive and epistemological faculty - because we live in either constancy and change, and we need to define them and make use of them to live and to think.

and yet, very few people are aware of this little logical fact. people often assume that the world is eccentric, or even solipsic. in doing so, they deny the flow of time, and redefine constancy and change as "phenomena that revolve around their petty cognition and comprehension". and so, for these people, time means little, and they fail to grow. we call this the stasis.

for the sage, things revolve as they are. time flows, and even the self is a subject of these torrents. humility is the first step to acknowledge the presence of time. and yet, few people have such courage and wisdom to admit this obvious fact. they would think that man is invincible. pah! nay. neither the pyramids nor the ziggurats last longer than the sands of time. pride has always been mankind's undoing.

now, back to the first question: are you in a stasis, or are you aware of the constancy and changes around you?

Change and Metamorphorsis

change is an indicative alteration of a subject's property over a time span. metamorphorsis, on the other hand, is an indicative transformation of a subject's entity. the two process are different per se. and yet, they often have the same kind of root and cause. I shall write about their causes in this passage; their differences in nature shall be discussed later.

it is apparent that man is a creature who loves complacency and stability. for this reason, change is something of great abhorrence, and time something to be feared and fought against. here is a simple fact: most people fear death, because it is the finite constraint of time, and it embodies uncertainties beyond the change of life and death. most people prefer to have the future just like now, and have a peaceful and stable stasis that never changes.

for this reason, human character and human mentality seldom change. there is no need to. the only way the human ming and character can change is under compulsion; that is to say, people change only when they must change. and so it is: we see people change when they are prompted and stimulated.

yet, the human wish for complancency is great, and this stimulus must be equally great if not greater, to prompt such change. in short, such "stimulus" ought to be castastrophic, if not detrimental. this sudden check of reality is called "meteor strike", analogous of a rock falling from the sky and hitting the subject's head.

such is the way of the weak, and the way of the herd. for the wise, contemplation and realization are the reality checks. will power and determination are the compulsion in lieu of pressing needs for survival. the sage anticipates what is to be, and grows and changes with the flow of time.

so.. are you resting and rejecting changes now, or are you contemplating and looking into the future?