Thursday, June 21, 2007

Personal current situation plus book review

I am very glad to get an interview in the Commerical Radio HK. To be honest I think it is an important opportunity to develop my career in boardcast media, and to a person who is interested in almost everything the invitation of an interview is very tempting. Unfortunately a night before I got a call from the Associated Press Television Network that they decide to give me this job offer as a junior producer, so I am sorry to even think about my giving up. However, we never know the future.

So the above is my personal situation at the moment, which is quite trivial here indeed.

Today I finished reading a book, The Conquest of Happiness by Russell Bertrand. As I always say, the writer is my favourite and this book is definitely worth to have a look.

The master of philosophy divided the book into two parts to analyse the causes of unhappiness and happiness. I think the main point of this book is to remind people of human being very trivial in the universe and thereafter we should not be self-centred. There are many ways to build up our happiness, and the most important thing to do is to develop as many interests and hobbies as possible. This is easy to understand as the more interests we have, the easier we get the way to zest. When we are in troubles that cannot be solved instantly, Bertrand suggested we should put them aside and do some other stuff before we go back. His supporting is that our subconsious will do the job. If we concentrate at a thing for too long the efficiency will decline. Thus we should let it go for a while before we pick it up again. We may even get a better result afterwards, and certainly we will not make ourselves overstressed.

I may not agree with everything in the book, as it was written many decades ago. For instance, the role of woman in the society is vastly different from Bertrand's time, so some of the analyses are not quite appropriate in my point of view. However some of the words he spoke of deserve to put into consideration, and here are something I really want to share:

"Whatever we may wish to think, we are creatures of Earth; our life is part of the life of the Earth, and we draw our nourishment from it just as the plants and animals do."
"Our doings are not so important as we naturally suppose; our successes and failures do not after all matter very much. Even great sorrows can be survived; troubles which seem as if they must put an end to happiness for life fade with the lapse of time until it becomes almost impossible to remember their poignancy. But over and above these self-centred considerations is the fact that one's ego is no very large part of the world."
"The world is vast and our own powers are limited. If all our happiness is bound up entirely in our personal circumstances it is difficult not to demand of life more than it has to give."

"Perhaps when biochemistry has made further advances we shall be able to take tablets that will ensure our feeling an interest in everything, but until that day comes we are compelled to depend upon common-sense observation of life to judge what are the causes that enable some men to take an interest in everything, while compelling others to take an interest in nothing."

"I should seek to make young people vividly aware of the past, vividly realising that the future of man will in all likelihood be immeasurably longer than his past, profoundly conscious of the minuteness of the planet upon which we live and of the fact that life on this planet is only a temporary incident;..."

"The man capable of greatness of soul will open wide the windows of his mind, letting the winds blow freely upon it from every portion of the universe. He will see himself and life and the world as truly as our human limitations will permit; realising the brevity and minuteness of human life, he will realise also that in individual minds is concentrated whatever of value the known universe contains. And he will see that the man whose mind mirrors the world becomes in a sense as great as the world. In emancipation from the fears that beset the slave of circumstance he will experience a profound joy, and through all the vicissitudes of his outward life he will remain in the depths of his being a happy man."

"Grief is unavoidable and must be expected, but everything that can be done should be done to minimise it."
Personally I enjoy most of the happinesses mentioned in the book. For some reason I do not want to say it is because of my intelligence or some sort of cool reasons. Instead I would say I am lucky enough to be born in this world to experience all I have gone through which gives my current dispositions. Thanks to my previous institutions and my parents, I have the pleasures to learn how to enjoy what I possess.

For the last quote I put, I would say I also expect grief. However sometimes I choose to feel its flow upon my heart softly as I know I'll be fine very soon. It is not only about the very most effort we should put to minimise the grief, but we have to forgive ourselves and feel how this emotion interacts with our own impersonally. I believe it helps to understand ourselves and strengthen ourselves. However I am not to criticise anything and as I always say I always admire the way Bertrand wrote and thought. This is just the personal preference to make a conquest of happiness.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

10 Years of Handover (Chinese)

我最近見了一兩份工,見工時都不約而同地被問及關於十年回歸的意見;早上出門前看路透社新聞,其中一篇是關於香港回歸十年的專題;今晚回到家裡,電視機播著有關十年回歸下的小市民課題。一下子,這個話題便在我的腦海裡游走。

人在洗澡時便特別想得多,除了在見工時提及在政治上的轉變外,我在想,還有甚麼?

1. 唱國歌:十年前,我只有十二歲,對回歸沒有特別感覺,但潛意識就是不高興:我不喜歡共產黨, 不喜歡中國。那時剛升上中學,我特別記得音樂課時,老師教我們唱中國國歌的情境:沒有人喜歡唱,大家在敷衍、玩鬧,假扮愛國地抬起一隻手臂,胡亂地唱;到了今天,我以前補習的小朋友會在上課時無聊地自唱自娛。他說:「我覺得很好聽!」我只能說,這顯然是回歸後教育的影響!

2. 遊行:回歸後,遊行特別多。剛剛公仔箱內曾蔭權接受翡翠台訪問,他說:回歸後人們較主動表達意見,於是較回歸前佳。我不是不認同特首先生的意見,只是在另一邊廂我又會想:為甚麼人們要遊行呢?除了覺得是自己地方,於是應該發表自己的聲音外,是不是其實也暗示這個政府做事很難令人滿意?不要說眾多大部份市民,就以自己為例,去遊行也不下三四次,為的就是希望政府能接收到自己的聲音;我的家人也一樣,他們起初也不去遊行,到了廿三條立法那天,父親說我們一家人都必須去遊行!他說:「政府實在不可以這樣下去了!」即使父親是一個很愛國的人,他也會走上街抗議政府。

從來,遊行與愛國並不互相抵觸。相反地,就是因為愛國,才更加熱愛表達自己的意見;只是,這個政府聽到了多少?

3. 光怪陸離:回歸十年,怪事多蘿蘿。十年前,我們覺得奇怪的只是董建華;十年後的今天,我們有巴士阿叔。香港發生的事情一天比一天離奇;這個都市甚麼都好像會發生,然後得到大眾討論,從而成為報章頭條。除了巴士阿叔外,我們還會討論港女港男,把所有人都概括化,即stereotype,好像用幾個膚淺的字眼就能把一個城市、兩種性別的人概括而論。究竟是甚麼原因導致我們的話題變得那麼奇怪?奇怪至一個地步是,我們都已經不再覺得奇怪了。所謂的港女港男,其實地球各地都會有這兩類人,所謂天下的烏鴉一樣黑,要如此對自己城市裡的人,或者套用內地的用語「同胞」,作出如此狠毒的批評,恐怕只有香港這麼一個地方了。

4. 污染:香港污染有多嚴重?十年前,我剛剛搬到西貢邊緣,鄰近馬鞍山。當時一片山青綠水,每晚回家時天空總有很多星星;十年後今天,我同樣每晚回家,抬頭看上去只有飛機的訊號燈,星星出現的次數少之又少。假若人們要說港英政府因為不是正式的英國領土便不理會這些環境問題,那麼屬於我們自己的特區政府又做到了多少?香港的污染已是國際知名,相信真正成了全球金融中心後,除了金融發展知名外,污染的惡名也緊接而來。尤記得去年在柬埔寨實習時,電視機裡CNN頻道播放著的節目便是揭露香港空氣的污染。過去十年,香港被霧霞覆蓋的日子,由九天內一天,變成每三天便有一天如此。這是回歸十年的禮物嗎?

除了以上這些,還有更多更多,又豈是翏翏數百字能言盡?

十年人事幾番新,更何況是一個城市。這十年是我的青春期,我剛剛在昨天更新了個人網頁,在上面總結了自己讀書的時光。剛開始時我還想以九七作起點,因為九七年正是我剛踏入中一的時候,只是想了又想後便放棄了這個主意。因為我在想,這個城市十年來並沒有顯著地變得更好,我便沒意思為此感到光榮。看著美國外交人員和英國前首相戴卓爾夫人用著一貫外交口吻說香港回歸十年依舊繁榮安定,也不免覺得好笑和無奈。對我來說,今天的香港是一個比商業化更商業化的城市,這樣片面的繁榮安定是否為大眾真心接受,大家也心裡有數;所以回歸十年的七一,大家更加應該遊行,以另一方法表現自己的愛國愛港。

[註:遊行的時候,香港人應想想:到底自己是否真的了解遊行的意義和自己參加的原因?]

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Extinction without creation

Some day when I was in the bus thinking about the book I am currently reading, some considerations about the title poped up randomly. I dropped them down without giving them a conclusion, as I do not think my intelligence is sufficient to provide a satisfactory answer.

In the history of evolution, what was the first life that appeared in the world symbolising the beginning of the process? How did it begin and why? There was quite a long time after the big bang before microorganism appeared. Then the evolution was said to begin and numerous creatures were developed by an unknown power. Let say the theory of evolution is true, there exist some questions that I do not understand, despite the fact that I am not about to criticize this assumption.

If creatures exist or once existed, there must be some sort of starting point for them to exist. How do/did they newly appear? I just read from Wikipedia about evolution and realize it is an controversial issue, as it involves not only science but also religion and philosophy. I shall have some discussion in the later section. This is certainly one thing.

At the mean time, if evolution truly exists as the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, a questions arises - why can't we discover new species in the current world? According to the theory, life continues to develop and new species should constantly appear through the process of natural selection or genetic drift. Then what is the reason we do not find any new organisms, which have never existed in the history? I am curious about this, as it is hardly convincing to claim the reason is that we are limited to technology when we enters a stage that we have never been so advanced. If this reason is justified, it possibly means our technology has reached a point that breakthrough can hardly be made. If the claim is not reasonable, and we can no longer find any new species, it is once again hard for me to believe the conclusion of this - life is going to disappear from Earth. Is everything only extinct? How about the world? Is its birth only for extinction? One day the sun will burn like a red giant and die. The solar system will collapse and so the Milky Way. Yet after all this, it seems to me that the world would continue without all this. What does the "world" mean? I think the world is not only about the universe we are living, but everything that exists. However, even the world includes everything, I doubt if the world will ever be over one day. Then many questions will come up if the world will be over. I do not think I have to further elaborate.

In our knowledge we are at the centre owing our mental nature. This hinders us from jumping out to an unknown stage. If everything ends, what will be left? Is it something named "emptiness"? I have no clue. Yet if there is emptiness, there must be something to contain this emptiness. When one space exists, how can it not exist? What will remain if one space is closed? This may be one of the reasons religion arises as some people believe this is under the control of the God's hand.

Some people may argue that evolution compells the possible existence of the God, but I think they can co-exist. It can be the decision of the God to create the process of evolution and we are all bound to this rule. Nevertheless the existence of the God is questionable, as up to this moment we have no ways to prove. We have to acknowledge our limit, despite we always test our possibility to go further. This reminds me of something I learnt during the high school -

生有涯而學無涯;
以有涯隨無涯,殆已

Indeed I do not remember the exact wordings, but roughly it means there is an end of our lives but no ends of knowledge; it is harmful to pursue the latter by means of the former. To me the statement is not proactive enough, but it has its implication that we need to understand and forgive our weaknesses.