那一種鬱悶叫人下一秒就要死去
沒法停止抽菸的冬天
冷得忘記要多穿一件外衣
於是越來越覺得冷
於是越來越想不起要多穿一件外衣
直至 整個人倒下來
[ 解夢筆記3 : 流淚之必要 ]
4 years ago
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
對白寫作訓練之神化劇場
那一夜，我在睡夢中遇見滿天神佛。
我：我好睏，請問我們可否終止對話。
神：因何你會如此的睏？
我：因為我只是人，你不是人，你總不能瞭解。
神：我也曾經是一個人。我必先要經過為人的階段，方能成為神。
我：你是人，哪是多久以前的事？
神：我．．．不記得。
我：HUH．．．那所以你其實都已經不記得人是怎麼做的。
神：Um.．．．其實大約是三千年前左右的事吧．．．
我：所有的神都總在自圓其說。
神：這是我的權利。
我：三千年前的人可能不會睏，但這個比你遲來三前年的我又facebook又msn又wii又哩又嘮，沒辦法不睏，我要去訓，求主垂憐，excuse me.
神：Aaaa．．．你說睏說了這麼久，還不是在跟我傾計，幹嗎現在走．．．
我：請你放．過．我．喇．
神：其實你若真的要走，大可立即轉身走，為何要得我同意？
我：因為你係神丫嘛大哥，搞得你唔鍾意，一間一個唔覺意整一整我我點呀？！？年頭去車公如果我求支下簽我驚成年架老細！
神：車公個簽筒唔係我管轄範圍之內。
我：Y----I----U!
神：我而家有兩樣野你揀。
我：我揀去訓。
神：兩樣都好過去訓。
我：邊有0甘大隻蛤LA隨街跳。
神：街冇，發夢有。
我：即管講黎聽下。
神：你唔係眼訓0羊？
我：而家未。
神：不知所謂。
我：這是我的權利。是你俾我的權利。
神：我幾時有俾過哩D你？！
我：點呀有0羊揀？
神：兩樣你可以揀其中一樣，跟你一世。一：事業有成，才俊0甘樣。注意，唔係發達果種，齋發達係虛浮的係膚淺的。如今哩一種，係踏實的係有內函的。
我：我明白，因為我都係一個討厭膚淺0既人。
神：我雖然好想，但我唔會妖你。
我：這是你的義務。
神：anyways．．．二：一個女人，一個你最鍾意0既女人。話明跟你一世，0甘當然你點對佢佢都唔會走喇，不過你對佢唔好佢會煩爆你囉。
我：煩係可以好得人驚架boh．．．
神：係架，到時你點甩都將唔會甩到。
我：．．．
神：記住，兩樣野唔係mutually exclusive，即係唔係你揀事業有成就冇女人，揀女人就一世做唔到才俊，只係揀左一樣另一樣就冇guarantee，要靠自己。
我：Um．．．．．．．
神：好難揀0羊？
我：當然，兩樣都係好，有是但一樣都好，只係0向哩個二揀一situation，兩樣野都變左有opportunity cost，喂，0甘我好難做囉．．．加上，如果我揀事業有成，他日我成為材俊之時，俾個女人知道我今晚有哩個選擇，我真係走佬都唔掂！但如果我揀女人，我又唔想佢同我捱囉．．．
神：妖，都唔知你班人研發埋晒哩D仆街measurement黎為乜，op 0羊 portunity cost jack？你睇，咪搞到你有得揀都你揀唔到囉．．．
我：我唔係揀唔到．．．係未揀到je．．．
神：妖，幽悠寡斷！
我：0甘我都係怕個女人唔開心je，先諗0甘耐je，大佬你知唔知乜野係愛情呀！
神：我點會唔知乜野係愛，我愛你們就如我愛天父一樣。
我：Diu！你果D係大愛呀嘛，我唔係講哩D呀，我講緊愛情呀，你冇架，你冇得有架，愛情係0甘架，又怕俾得唔夠又怕LOH得唔夠呀，哩D先係愛情呀DIU！
佛：你可知你係唔可以diu神的。
我：妖，0甘佢本來夠唔妖得我咪又妖左．．．
佛：我聽唔到。
我：搞銀．．．
佛：注意，你可知車公係我管轄範圍之內。
我：OK! Fine!
佛：你可知．．．
我：喂咪住，車公唔係佛家架woh！
佛：你可知諸法因緣生，諸法因緣滅。萬物皆不離緣起性空之法．．．
我：OK．．． Fine．．．
神：係要將D野講到0甘佢先收口．．．十戒果D寫得清楚明白佢就藐。
佛：人性矣。
我：嗡嘛呢唄咪吽
佛：我唔係鬼，你唸六字大明咒係無用的。
我：點知jack，我見過假架嘛．．．
佛：你可知有得你揀已經係Bonus來？
我：發夢je，又唔係真，咪由我囉。
佛：若然此情此景非夢中，你可會揀得落手？
我：人生在世何嘗唔係一場夢呢。色不異空，空不典色；色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。
佛：你知就好。
我：係係係．．．無眼界，乃至無意識界。無無明，亦無無明盡；乃至無老死，亦無老死盡。無苦、集、滅、道。無智亦無得，以無所得故，菩提薩埵。依般若波羅蜜多故，心無罣礙；無罣礙故，無有恐怖，遠離顛倒夢想，究竟涅槃。
佛：係囉。可你仍未脫塵世，就唔該你好好地諗下你要點做。
我：我們製造體溫 沒理會過地暗天昏 感情有事偏不敢去問 三十四度高溫 長留禁室內尋蜜運 沒冷氣 怎接近 纏綿時不會問 誰人的責任 明知冷卻也都貪癡 能親熱便無大件事 明知彼此 各取所需 其實在對峙 明知瘡疤 貼滿膠紙 留戀現狀 逼不得已 明明可攤開作出協議 怕失去所依明明知終需出事 並未降溫出於自私．．．
佛：你唱乜？
神：陳奕迅，熱島小夜曲。
佛：．．．side cut黎woh，0甘你都知？！
神：我是全知、全能的．．．
佛：似乎．．．有矛盾．．．
我：算喇我兩樣都唔要。橫掂都係假0既。
佛：你唔揀並唔係因為你看破生死色相，知無常苦．．．
然後我醒來，無可選擇地，起身，返工。
我：我好睏，請問我們可否終止對話。
神：因何你會如此的睏？
我：因為我只是人，你不是人，你總不能瞭解。
神：我也曾經是一個人。我必先要經過為人的階段，方能成為神。
我：你是人，哪是多久以前的事？
神：我．．．不記得。
我：HUH．．．那所以你其實都已經不記得人是怎麼做的。
神：Um.．．．其實大約是三千年前左右的事吧．．．
我：所有的神都總在自圓其說。
神：這是我的權利。
我：三千年前的人可能不會睏，但這個比你遲來三前年的我又facebook又msn又wii又哩又嘮，沒辦法不睏，我要去訓，求主垂憐，excuse me.
神：Aaaa．．．你說睏說了這麼久，還不是在跟我傾計，幹嗎現在走．．．
我：請你放．過．我．喇．
神：其實你若真的要走，大可立即轉身走，為何要得我同意？
我：因為你係神丫嘛大哥，搞得你唔鍾意，一間一個唔覺意整一整我我點呀？！？年頭去車公如果我求支下簽我驚成年架老細！
神：車公個簽筒唔係我管轄範圍之內。
我：Y----I----U!
神：我而家有兩樣野你揀。
我：我揀去訓。
神：兩樣都好過去訓。
我：邊有0甘大隻蛤LA隨街跳。
神：街冇，發夢有。
我：即管講黎聽下。
神：你唔係眼訓0羊？
我：而家未。
神：不知所謂。
我：這是我的權利。是你俾我的權利。
神：我幾時有俾過哩D你？！
我：點呀有0羊揀？
神：兩樣你可以揀其中一樣，跟你一世。一：事業有成，才俊0甘樣。注意，唔係發達果種，齋發達係虛浮的係膚淺的。如今哩一種，係踏實的係有內函的。
我：我明白，因為我都係一個討厭膚淺0既人。
神：我雖然好想，但我唔會妖你。
我：這是你的義務。
神：anyways．．．二：一個女人，一個你最鍾意0既女人。話明跟你一世，0甘當然你點對佢佢都唔會走喇，不過你對佢唔好佢會煩爆你囉。
我：煩係可以好得人驚架boh．．．
神：係架，到時你點甩都將唔會甩到。
我：．．．
神：記住，兩樣野唔係mutually exclusive，即係唔係你揀事業有成就冇女人，揀女人就一世做唔到才俊，只係揀左一樣另一樣就冇guarantee，要靠自己。
我：Um．．．．．．．
神：好難揀0羊？
我：當然，兩樣都係好，有是但一樣都好，只係0向哩個二揀一situation，兩樣野都變左有opportunity cost，喂，0甘我好難做囉．．．加上，如果我揀事業有成，他日我成為材俊之時，俾個女人知道我今晚有哩個選擇，我真係走佬都唔掂！但如果我揀女人，我又唔想佢同我捱囉．．．
神：妖，都唔知你班人研發埋晒哩D仆街measurement黎為乜，op 0羊 portunity cost jack？你睇，咪搞到你有得揀都你揀唔到囉．．．
我：我唔係揀唔到．．．係未揀到je．．．
神：妖，幽悠寡斷！
我：0甘我都係怕個女人唔開心je，先諗0甘耐je，大佬你知唔知乜野係愛情呀！
神：我點會唔知乜野係愛，我愛你們就如我愛天父一樣。
我：Diu！你果D係大愛呀嘛，我唔係講哩D呀，我講緊愛情呀，你冇架，你冇得有架，愛情係0甘架，又怕俾得唔夠又怕LOH得唔夠呀，哩D先係愛情呀DIU！
佛：你可知你係唔可以diu神的。
我：妖，0甘佢本來夠唔妖得我咪又妖左．．．
佛：我聽唔到。
我：搞銀．．．
佛：注意，你可知車公係我管轄範圍之內。
我：OK! Fine!
佛：你可知．．．
我：喂咪住，車公唔係佛家架woh！
佛：你可知諸法因緣生，諸法因緣滅。萬物皆不離緣起性空之法．．．
我：OK．．． Fine．．．
神：係要將D野講到0甘佢先收口．．．十戒果D寫得清楚明白佢就藐。
佛：人性矣。
我：嗡嘛呢唄咪吽
佛：我唔係鬼，你唸六字大明咒係無用的。
我：點知jack，我見過假架嘛．．．
佛：你可知有得你揀已經係Bonus來？
我：發夢je，又唔係真，咪由我囉。
佛：若然此情此景非夢中，你可會揀得落手？
我：人生在世何嘗唔係一場夢呢。色不異空，空不典色；色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。
佛：你知就好。
我：係係係．．．無眼界，乃至無意識界。無無明，亦無無明盡；乃至無老死，亦無老死盡。無苦、集、滅、道。無智亦無得，以無所得故，菩提薩埵。依般若波羅蜜多故，心無罣礙；無罣礙故，無有恐怖，遠離顛倒夢想，究竟涅槃。
佛：係囉。可你仍未脫塵世，就唔該你好好地諗下你要點做。
我：我們製造體溫 沒理會過地暗天昏 感情有事偏不敢去問 三十四度高溫 長留禁室內尋蜜運 沒冷氣 怎接近 纏綿時不會問 誰人的責任 明知冷卻也都貪癡 能親熱便無大件事 明知彼此 各取所需 其實在對峙 明知瘡疤 貼滿膠紙 留戀現狀 逼不得已 明明可攤開作出協議 怕失去所依明明知終需出事 並未降溫出於自私．．．
佛：你唱乜？
神：陳奕迅，熱島小夜曲。
佛：．．．side cut黎woh，0甘你都知？！
神：我是全知、全能的．．．
佛：似乎．．．有矛盾．．．
我：算喇我兩樣都唔要。橫掂都係假0既。
佛：你唔揀並唔係因為你看破生死色相，知無常苦．．．
然後我醒來，無可選擇地，起身，返工。
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Ku Klux Klan
This is not come out because Stetson Kenndy was courageous or reolute or unflappable, even though he was all of these. It happened because he understood the raw power of information. the Ku Klux Klan ─ much like politicians or real-estate agents or tockbrokers ─ was a group whose power was derived in large part from the fct that it hoarded information. Once that information falls into the wrong hands (or, depending on your point of view, the right hands), much of the group's advantage disappears......
......Information is a beacon, a cudgel, an olive branch, a deterrent ─ all depending on who wields it and how. Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect. Consider the case of a one-day-old car.
They day that a car is driven off the lost is the worst day in its life, for it instantly loses as much as a quarter of its value. This might seem absurd, but we know it to be tru. A new car that was bought for $20000 cannot be resold for more than perhaps $15000. Why? because the only person who might logically want to resell a brand-new car is someone who found the car to be a lemon. So even if the car isn't a lemon, a potential buyer assumes taht it is. He assumes that the seller has some information about the car that he, the buyer, does not have ─ and the seller is punished for this assumed information.
And if the car is a lemon? The seller would do well to wait a year to sell it. By then, the suspicion of lemoness will have daded; by then, some people will be selling their perfectly good year-old cars, and the lemon car blend in with them, likely selling for more than it is truly worth....
Chaper 2, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
......Information is a beacon, a cudgel, an olive branch, a deterrent ─ all depending on who wields it and how. Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect. Consider the case of a one-day-old car.
They day that a car is driven off the lost is the worst day in its life, for it instantly loses as much as a quarter of its value. This might seem absurd, but we know it to be tru. A new car that was bought for $20000 cannot be resold for more than perhaps $15000. Why? because the only person who might logically want to resell a brand-new car is someone who found the car to be a lemon. So even if the car isn't a lemon, a potential buyer assumes taht it is. He assumes that the seller has some information about the car that he, the buyer, does not have ─ and the seller is punished for this assumed information.
And if the car is a lemon? The seller would do well to wait a year to sell it. By then, the suspicion of lemoness will have daded; by then, some people will be selling their perfectly good year-old cars, and the lemon car blend in with them, likely selling for more than it is truly worth....
Chaper 2, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Who Cheats?
Well, just about everyone, if the stakes are right. You might say to yourself, I don't cheat, regardless of the stakes. And then you might remember the time you cheated on, say, a board game. Last week. Or the golf ball you nudge out of its bad lie. Or the time you really wanted a bagel in the office break room but couldn't come up with the dollar you were supposed to drop in the coffee can. And then took the bagel away. And told yoruself you'd pay double the next time. And didn't.
For every clever person who goes to the trouble of creating an incentive scheme, there is an army of people, clever and otherwise, who will inevitably spend even more time trying to beat it. Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it is certainly a prominent feature in just about every human endeavor. Cheating is a primordial ECONOMIC ACT: gettign more for less. So it isn't just the boldface names－inside-trading CEOs and pill-popping ballplayers and perk-abusing politicians－who cheat. It is the Wal-Mart payroll manager who goes into the computer and shaves his employees' hours to make his own performance look better. It is the third grader who, worried about not makeing it to the fourth grade, copies test answer from the kid sitting next to him.......
......If morality represents the way we would like the world to work and economics represents how it actually does work, the the story of Feldman's bagel business lies at the very intersection of morality and economics. Yes, a lot of people steal from him, but the vast majority, even though no one is watching over them, do not. This outcome may surprise some people－including Feldman's economist friends, who counseled him twenty years ago that his honor-system scheme would never work. But it would not have surprised Adam Smith. In fact, the theme of Smith's first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was the innate honesty of mankind. "How selfish soever man may be supposed," Smith wrote, "there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."
There is a tale, "The Ring of Gyges," that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato's Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates - who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman's economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things－seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon's story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith－for he knows that the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes.
Chapter 1, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
For every clever person who goes to the trouble of creating an incentive scheme, there is an army of people, clever and otherwise, who will inevitably spend even more time trying to beat it. Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it is certainly a prominent feature in just about every human endeavor. Cheating is a primordial ECONOMIC ACT: gettign more for less. So it isn't just the boldface names－inside-trading CEOs and pill-popping ballplayers and perk-abusing politicians－who cheat. It is the Wal-Mart payroll manager who goes into the computer and shaves his employees' hours to make his own performance look better. It is the third grader who, worried about not makeing it to the fourth grade, copies test answer from the kid sitting next to him.......
......If morality represents the way we would like the world to work and economics represents how it actually does work, the the story of Feldman's bagel business lies at the very intersection of morality and economics. Yes, a lot of people steal from him, but the vast majority, even though no one is watching over them, do not. This outcome may surprise some people－including Feldman's economist friends, who counseled him twenty years ago that his honor-system scheme would never work. But it would not have surprised Adam Smith. In fact, the theme of Smith's first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was the innate honesty of mankind. "How selfish soever man may be supposed," Smith wrote, "there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."
There is a tale, "The Ring of Gyges," that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato's Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates - who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman's economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things－seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon's story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith－for he knows that the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes.
Chapter 1, Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
