Philosophical Investigation

AGO on Relationship

2005-08-06T21:50:00.000-07:00

7th June 2005

i have just done an AGO (Aims, Goals, Objectives one of the Creative Thinking Tools by Edward de Bono) on my future relationship (it's time to have a clear idea of "where i am... and where i want to be"), and i have come up with the followings:-

Love/Respect:
* Affection, emotional support & care for each other
* Admiration for each other
* Prioritise the relationship appropriately
* Treat each other as an end itself (not means to other ends)

Commitment:
* Intention to be in a long term relationship together
* Agreement on what commitment involves (eg monogamy, consented activities, contributions toward the partnership etc)

Communication:
* Willingness to talk & express one's thoughts & feelings (with a softened startup if making a complaint)
* Willingness to listen to each other's thoughts & feelings empathically and non-judgementally
* Turn towards each other when having problems
* Be each other's best friend

Shared Values/Visions
* eg moral beliefs, missions in life etc.

Bringing out the best of each other
* have a sense of each other's development & growth (eg to develop strengths & work on weaknesses)

Good companionship
* Have fun together
* shared hobbies/activities

Eudaimonia

2005-06-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

17th June 2005

Recently, someone asked me a very good question:
"If you could have anything in the world right now, what would it be?"

I'm very grateful that she asked me the question, as it allows me to really think about what I want in life. Without knowing what one really wants, how is one supposed to achieve one's 'goals'?

If I may fantasise my vision of a 'good life', I would like to have the opportunities and my internal stammina, talents and persistency to engage in the kind of works that will have a positive and motivational impact on the people around me. I would like to be with my soul mate, someone who can share life intimately with me, to share the same vision and strive for the same goals together. I would like to continue to bathe in the love of my friends and family, to maintain a tranquil state of mind to think with clarity and to feel empathically, to have sufficient material goods and good health so that I can concentrate on my works and nourish the people around me.

drives into relationship...

2005-05-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

23rd May 2005

i suppose there are two types of drives that propel a person into a relationship.

(D1) the nature of the first one is aspiration in nature. it is forward looking, it is filled with admiration - the attraction towards the beauty, the brilliant colours, the fantastic synergy...

(D2) the nature of the second one is fear in nature. it is backward looking, it is filled with fear - the fear of loneliness, of being insecure, of not having any sex, of not conforming to the norms of society or one's community....

it is a bit like finding a job, some people are driven by (D2) and feel that they have no choice but to work in order to survive, and work is not for enjoyment or realisation of potentials/dreams... no wonder they often feel so unfulfilled and unhappy at work...

i never go to work because of (D2). i'd rather go for a less paid job that is more meaningful, after all, i'm spending one third of my day with work, what a waste of time and my life to be driven by (D2).

but what about relationship? it's only recently it suddenly dawns on me that i was driven by (D2) when i entered my last relationship. loneliness is not easy to withstand, and when one gets to a certain age and feels one's biological clock is ticking, it may feel like the right thing to do...

there is nothing morally wrong to be driven by (D2), the only catch of being driven by (D2) is that it is a limiting drive which entails a limiting fulfilment by definition, because even when one obtains a 100% from such a relationship (or work for that matter), one is only getting away from what one fears, not what one truly wants and aspires for.

what seems even more paradoxical is that by fearing something, we actually attract what we fear by investing energy in the feared object... thus if one is in fear of loneliness, one actually gives power to it, and allows loneliness to enter one's life more readily....

it is time to confront my own fear: to transform the fear of loneliness to an enjoyment of one's solitude and personal space; to turn the sense of insecurity to the opportunity to explore and take (reasonable) risks; to turn the lack of sex or physical intimacy into a time to explore one's own body and even to embark on some spiritual pursuit; to turn away from the norms by following one's heart....

it's time to sort myself out, i know.

Using Game Theory to analyse the Coming Out dilemma

2005-05-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

27th October 2002

Introduction

Despite the decriminalisation of the sodomy law in 1991, the progress of the gay rights movement in Hong Kong is still disappointingly slow. For instance, there isn’t any anti-discrimination legislation to protect lesbians and gays at the workplace, homophobic attitudes and behaviours are still quite common in the region, and many homosexuals feel that it is too risky to lead their alternative lifestyles openly. About two years ago, a heated debate took place in a Hong Kong based Yahoo egroup, called Tongzhi 2000, regarding whether an individual should stop being selfish and come out in order to propel the gay rights movement or whether it is too demanding on the individuals. The issue here can be framed as a free-rider problem, and will be analysed by game theory.

Game Theory

The mathematical theory of games was established by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1944. Since then it has been developed into “the most important and useful tool in the analyst’s kit whenever she confronts situations in which one agent’s rational decision-making depends on her expectations about what one or more other agents [or nature] will do, and theirs similarly depend on expectations about her.”

There are two main types of games, namely, zero sum and nonzero sum games. In the former, there is a complete conflict of interest between the players as the gain for one implies an equal loss to the other, and vice versa. Game theory can provide persuasive formal solutions to two-person zero sum game, but many real strategic interactions are not purely competitive, in nonzero sum situations cooperation between players can in fact bring rewards to all parties. It is called nonzero sum because “the sum of one person’s loss and another’s gains need not be zero…. [And] the total profit all parties can make is determined by the parties’ behavior.”

Social dilemmas

Social dilemmas belong to the nonzero sum category. They are dilemmas because, contrary to individual rationality which instructs one not to cooperate/contribute, the collective payoffs (i.e. the sum of all players’ rewards) of that choice is much less than if they all cooperate/contribute.
The most famous and simplest example of a nonzero sum game is the two-person prisoner’s dilemma first described by A. W. Tucker. (See Appendix for further details). Social dilemmas share many basic features with two-person prisoner’s dilemmas, they differ mainly in complexity and the number of players, with the former having three or more players. Although differing in the specific conflict of interest, the situations of social dilemmas are usually either in the form of the players deciding whether or not to forego personal benefits, or whether or not to engage in costly actions. The former is also known as resource conservation dilemmas, tragedy of the commons or social traps, and the latter is also called public goods dilemmas, free-rider problems or social fences.

The coming out dilemma

Unlike many examples of the public goods dilemma, the public goods generated by the gay rights movement are usually not in the form of commodities such as public roads or public health care. That is one reason why very few people saw the coming out issue as a free-rider problem in the Tongzhi egroup debate. It is nonetheless a public goods dilemma which can be analysed by game theory.

As alluded to earlier homosexuality is still a social taboo in Hong Kong, thus the contribution a player makes to the movement would often involve the risk of coming out. Since the extent of the risk varies from person to person – ranging from being the topic of gossip at work or at school to being bullied to losing one’s job to being disowned by one’s family and friends – it is hard to generalise the amount of contribution each player has to make. Just like the free-rider problem in the blood donation issue in which some people are too ill to give blood, I’ll only consider those individuals whose coming out won’t bring about catastrophic results.

If everyone in the community comes out, it will enhance the visibility of homosexuals in society which not only can help diminish homophobia in general, but can also serve as a substantial lobbying force to pressurise the government to legislate anti-discrimination law and other appropriate public policies. Let’s give +100 units of utility to everyone’s payoff if all players come out.

There will be similar positive outcome (+100 units) even if one player does not come out. In such a scenario, a closeted player can enjoy the benefit from the movement while saving herself the hassles and risks of coming out, let’s give +200 units to such a player. Nevertheless, if all or most players remain in the closet, then everyone will suffer from living in a society with no gay rights at all. Let’s give –100 units to everyone in such a scenario. Alternatively, if only one or very few players come out while the majority doesn’t, the former may be regarded as martyrs (if not suckers), but in the short term the effect from their contributions is negligible. So let’s give –200 units to those martyrs and the rest gets –100 units. The following four-cell matrix represents the payoffs with respect to the combined choices made by an individual player versus the majority of players. The units on the left in each cell represent the reward/punishment of an individual player and the units on the right represent that of the majority.

Majority of players Majority of players
Cooperate (come out) Defect (closeted)

Individual player: (come out) [+100; +100] [-200; -100]
Individual player: (closeted) [+200; +100] [-100; -100]

According to the above analysis, the collective payoff is the highest if a sufficiently high number of players cooperate, such an outcome is called the maximum joint profit. Nevertheless, if an individual player applies the mini-max strategy to calculate her own payoffs, then she is rational to defect (i.e. to remain closeted). Because if she defects whereas others don’t she would receive +200 units (as opposed to +100 units if she cooperates), thus her gain is maximized by being a free-rider with a “clean conscience” that the collective outcome won’t be diminished because one person doesn’t contribute. Even if everyone defects, she would receive –100 units as opposed to –200 units for being a martyr/sucker to cooperate, thus her loss is minimized.

If all players are just concerned with their own individual utility – Thomas Hobbes would certainly think so – then the game would gravitate towards the outcome of everyone remaining in the closet. This is the saddle point of the game and it is perhaps one reason why the progress of the movement is still so slow. The irony of social dilemmas is that if all players adhere to their individual rationality, then all of them would be worse off collectively than if they “forego” their personal interests. This is a mixed-motive situation in which personal goals are in conflict with collective ones. Alas, given the social situation and the nature of the risk involved, many people find the motive for self-preservation much stronger than the motive to fight for a socially just world that would yield more payoffs for everyone in the long run. It looks like the queer community would need more martyrs to fight for some major breakthroughs until the rest of the community feels secure enough to join in.

Resource conservation dilemmas

Some experimental results suggested that players are more willing to cooperate if the problem is framed as a resource conservation dilemma as opposed to a public goods dilemma, because it is easier to ask people to take less rather than to give more. For example, instead of asking people to clean up public areas (i.e. to give more), it would be more effective to ask them to refrain from littering (i.e. to spoil less clean space).

Despite the possible difference due to the framing effects, analysis of the resource conservation dilemma is similar to that of the public good dilemma. Thus, in the case of the littering problem, if there isn’t any structural solution – such as giving the litterbugs a fine which in turn would change the payoffs for defecting – players would be drawn towards the saddle point where everyone is tempted to litter for the sake of convenience with the comforting thought that “so long as other people are keeping the city clean, what difference would I make by leaving just an extra piece of litter on the floor?” And like the public goods dilemma, the collective payoff is highest if everyone cooperates.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen from the above examples, game theory is a useful tool to analyse social dilemmas, and its power has been supported by experimental games. E.g. the games developed by Jerdee and Rosen (1974) for the resource conservation dilemmas, and the games developed by Marwell and Ames (1979) for the public goods dilemmas.

Nevertheless, some may argue that the game theory analysis is too simple minded. In the case of the coming out dilemma, players may seek their guidance from, say, some deontological reasoning rather than from some rational calculation that chooses the option yielding the most utility. On the normative level it is perhaps a matter of an individual’s ethical choice to deploy game theory for decision making, but if it is chosen, it is a powerful tool to analyse the utility of various options from the perspective of the whole group and that of the individual.

References

Brewer, M.B., & Kramer, R.M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemma: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543-549.
Colman, A. (1995). Game theory and its applications. London: Routledge. (2nd edition)
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 16, 1243-1248.
Jerdee, T.H., & Rosen, B. (1974). Effects of opportunity to communicate and visibility of individual decisions on behavior in the common interest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 712-716.
Luce, R.D. & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.
Marwell, G., & Ames, R.E. (1979). Experiments on provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1335-1360.
McDaniel, W.C., & Sistrunk, F. (1991). Management dilemmas and decisions: Impact of framing and anticipated responses. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 21-42.
Ross, D. “Game theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 1999 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
Sabini, J. (1995). Social Psychology. New York: Norton. (Second edition).
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd edition.

Appendix

Tucker’s anecdote of prisoner’s dilemma:
Two suspects of a robbery are caught but the district attorney doesn’t have sufficient evidence to convict them, so he makes an offer to both of them separately that if one suspect confesses whereas the other doesn’t, the former will get a three-month sentence and the latter 20 years. If both of them confess, each will get ten years. But if neither confesses, then he will trump up some charges and get each of them a one-year sentence. The following four-cell matrix is a typical representation of the payoffs with respect to the combined choices each player (in this case each prisoner) makes.

Prisoner 2 Prisoner 2
Cooperate (Refuse to confess) Defect (Confess)

Prisoner 1: Cooperate (Refuse to confess) [1 year; 1 year] [20 years; 3 months]
Prisoner 1: Defect (Confess) [3 months; 20 years] [10 years; 10 years]

According to the above analysis, if both prisoners cooperate the collective payoff is the highest as the sum of sentences is merely two years, this is called the maximum joint profit. Nevertheless, if each prisoner applies the mini-max strategy to calculate his own payoffs, then he is rational to defect (i.e. to confess), because if he defects whereas his partner doesn’t, he gets the lightest sentence (i.e. his gain is maximized). Even if his partner defects as well, he would receive ten years as opposed to 20 years for being the sucker to cooperate, thus his loss is minimized. If both prisoners are just concerned with their own individual goods, then the game would gravitate towards the outcome of both defecting which is the saddle point. The irony of the prisoner’s dilemma is that if the players adhere to their individual rationality, then both of them would be worse off collectively than if they “forego” their personal interest. This is a mixed-motive situation in which personal goals are in conflict with collective goals.

沒有寄出的信

2005-05-08T10:30:00.000-07:00

October 2000

沒有寄出的信
by 斑比
Excerpt from 《月亮的騷動》

從來沒有想過一段純理性的交流竟會引發出如此的激情。一切都是如詩又如畫地呈現，愚笨的我不知反思和經歷了多久，才可以窺探得到當年的經歷究竟是怎麼的一回事......

「想起車中跟您初相逢，
匆匆的只怕落了空。」

乘著破舊的小火車，向著寄宿學校的方向駛去，是您我初次邂逅的時空。很少會在英國的小鄉村碰見亞裔人士。雖然大家都是謙謙君子遙遙相望，卻格外留神。

漫長且勞碌的旅程過後，終於抵達校園。意外地，又再碰到您！原來您是新入學的中六生。您與別的同學很不相像，不會隨波逐流，不會庸俗的「埋堆」。有些同學在您背後安了個花名──「玻璃」，意思是您像玻璃般的隔膜。然而，我偏偏覺得玻璃代表了您通透的心境。我就是如此被您淡而清高的氣質吸引。

終於，某一天，厚著臉皮找了一個無聊的借口去您的宿舍串門。當我們談及大學選科時，竟發現您和我都熱愛哲學！在這茫茫人海中，能碰到一個思想如此另類、又如此與我相像的人，實在欣喜若狂。

接著的日子，我們時常一起談論許許多多的哲學問題。我澎湃的思緒終於找到了合適的渠道奔流，而您永遠都是如此用心、專注去聆聽我那些似是而非的理論，您的聆聽將常人認為是廢話的東西加添意義。也許這是我人生中第一次如此被欣賞，不需要再孤芳自賞了，哈哈！

「想起彼此的不同，
這晚卻暢快地接通。」

表面上看，您和我是截然不同的人，您是勤奮、成績好、自律、克己、嚴肅的人，而我剛好相反，喜歡自由自在、不受拘束......倘若大家都在香港讀書做同學的話，恐怕不會做朋友，更不會有如此深入的交流。然而，在那個時空，您我都「困」在異鄉；就是那個時空，給我們互相打開心扉的機會；就是那個時空，讓我們發現您我之間竟有那麼多相通的地方：不論是音樂、政治、哲學、或是理想......教我怎能不被您深深地吸引？從未試過如此欣賞一個同輩朋友。漸漸地，我發覺自己上學的最大推動力竟然是為了能見到您一兩面！從來不理會外表的我竟也會梳梳頭才出門。您已慢慢地佔據了我每分、每吋的思維。但是這種佔據是正面的，皆因為我帶來無窮創作詩詞的靈感！

在過去的四年，嚐過離鄉別井的寂寞，心中一直只祈盼能找到知音人，便心滿意足了。沒想到這個夢想竟能在中學畢業前的最後一年實現，夫復何求？而一九九零年的十二月十一日更是我有生以來最快樂、最幸福的日子！皆因那天您首次寫了一封信給我，來表達您對我們這段友誼的感覺：

「從來沒有試過亦沒有想過一段友誼會發展得這麼快，這對我來說是很大的收穫和驚喜。也許彼此都有其共通點(這共通點不需要多，但必須佔生命一個很重要的環節)和不同之處。(很微妙，這不同之處非但沒有引起衝突，反而可能是令對方吸引和欣賞的地方)；也許彼此很需要『感覺』做人和給予自己一些指引；又也許彼此的友誼沒有太多的裝飾，是純然這般的真和坦然。這段友誼總算是一個很好的開始，就算是雙方送給對方的最好的聖誕禮物。

到目前為止，我覺得認識你可能比你認識我略多一點，因為你講話比我多，不過認識對方的程度是很難衡量的，就讓它順其自然地發展。

PS: This is actually part of my diary yesterday. 不過感覺沒有甚麼不可以給你看。

All love,
Mxxxx
(1:08 am)」

到目前為止，收到您這一封信的那一天，仍然是我人生中最高興的時刻。就算得到世間的財富或珍品，也換不到那一天的喜悅。就是您無心的一封信，開啟了我們既含蓄又浪漫的書信交流。

差不多每一天我也寫信給您，您也差不多每一天回信給我。我們的關係──雖然那麼柏拉圖式的──卻一天比一天像「偷情」。首先，不知為何，我們都不希望讓別的同學知道我們的關係是如此密切；尤其是J，她是您的同級同學，也是我的好朋友。她的妒忌心很強，由始至終都在您我之間穿插......許多時候，您我都是趁在飯堂擦身而過的時候，把信悄悄地放在對方手中，然後若無其事地走開。

不知從何時開始，天氣漸冷了，您也讓我知道您的手冷了。我把它們緊緊地收在手心內，希望永遠地暖著。也不知從何時起，我每天晚上都夢見您，彼此有著親密的接觸......有時我們是背對背、身貼身地坐在草地上，又或者是我安然地伏在您懷中，彼此的相親......不知從何時開始，我對您有非份之幻想......不知從何時起，您已成為了我生命的焦點......

在聖誕節之前的一個長周末，大部份學生都回家度過，通常只有我們這些海外學生留下來。為方便管理，學校會安排我們這些小眾入住同一間宿舍。我終於可以不用冒著冰冷的風雨走上您的宿舍談天，大家也可以在同一間房內溫書、做功課。雖說做功課，其實又是大家談天的時間，只有您和我。我們忽然談及雙方的字體，我隨手寫了一首早前作的詩，您滿心好奇。這是我第一次不怕醜地把所有劣作都交給別人看，沒想到您會珍而重之、細細品嚐。

聽著您我喜愛的古典音樂，談著詩詞、藝術、哲學，甚至掌紋，不經意地發現這個小房間的窗外原來是黃昏的迷人景色。我們放下一切，走到窗邊，靜靜地投進這片綠綠的田園......時間彷彿凝固了，直至J走進來。看見您我的背影，她說我們像一對情侶。尷尬地，您提步離開這種僵住了的氣氛。

不知從何時起，J愈來愈干涉我們的關係。直覺地我相信J是喜歡我的，再加上她很寂寞，所以她的所作所為是可以理解的。然而您卻對此感到很困擾。現在重溫您二月初寫的一封信，才知道原來您當年是那麼投入我們這段「友誼」。過去的十年實在不忍回想當年的一切，只會不斷地告訴自己當年只是自己胡思亂想、一廂情願的romantic friendship，但事實究竟如何，到了現在我仍弄不清......

「Dearest Exxxx,
我很煩，很辛苦。為甚麼她偏偏要故意阻止我們的關係？我很想你現在便來找我。抬頭外望，窗很模糊，看不通透。只看見自己在窗內的反映。外面路很難行，很黑、很暗。我不開心，想找你傾訴，又奈何自己沒有去找你，想你現在也不會來的。其實為她的interference而感到苦惱又值得嗎？我們真的事不宜遲，名正言順(尤其在J面前)去繼續大家這段珍貴的友誼。容忍是有限度的，我不是說要與她反面。

1) 一是我們去默然承受她的interference──這樣做太愚笨了，簡直令自己窒息，Fxxxing HELL!我受夠了，為甚麼今天 afternoon時要consciously地pretend不介意她的存在，是我可憐她(她需要我去可憐她嗎？)還是自己過份為她著想。

2) 二是我們反抗罷──反抗的方式有很多種。
可以是ignorance──是否很不近人情？究竟Who is making the trouble now?

我受夠了She is a nuisance to me.

既然我們都想擺脫(不是完全擺脫)，走出這個困局，便去擺脫吧。我們可否lunch time約定一起食lunch？

I really can't stand her anymore!!!

我真的很希望你現在來看我。

Real desperate.

All love,
Mxxxx
10.2.91
7:45 pm」

我的愛人，倘若當時我知道您的心情，定會第一時間飛奔到場，與您分擔。您是不太喜歡表達自己感受的人，卻寫出如此到肉的信，相信當時定是困擾萬分。

「錦瑟無端五十弦，
一弦一柱思華年。」

十八歲始終是人生最美麗的年華，我也有幸嚐到人生最幸福的時光(但是我不介意在二十八歲的時候再多嚐一次)。您是我的快樂泉源；您在我心目中的印象，由始至終都是完美的──噢，一個多麼令人害怕的概念！

一九九一年二月四日我的日記：

「我的感受已經超越了快樂！看來，我已不再是emotional。已去了一個從未經歷過的境界。你已是我最愛的。無疑的。我說不出亦無需要說；因你已感覺得到，亦會不斷地感覺得到。

你quote了三毛的話，it's so true.

我不知你是否我一生中最愛的，但此刻最愛的是你。不知道再說甚麼，亦無需言語。一切只需要靠感覺。你感覺亦明白。有時怕你知道，但你知道卻覺得快樂，不，這感覺比快樂更強，比滿足更適合。

Half term能與你一起實在很高興，有你在身邊，我已感到很溫暖。我不想說太多話，亦不想你過份地思考，不想你累， although myself is so demanding.每次想到你說將來我走了，你會感到寂寞，我的心便隱隱作痛。

......

I think we know why two weeks ago we thought our relationship was not "mutual/neutral" or awkward etc.. You see, we just love each other and this is something we haven't, or at least i haven't, experiened before. It gives colour to this relationship, but this colour, neither of us have seen it in our lives, that's why it seemed so odd.

8:46 pm」

我一生中最大的遺憾是從來沒有直接向您表達對您的愛意。愚昧的我更要花上七年的時間才確定到自己的性取向，多麼的可悲。然而，這是否代表您完全不知道我的感受？我們當年太含蓄了，但您的舊信的片言隻字已暴露了許多當年不敢去想的東西......

「從沒想到一段不經意的友誼可以發展得這般快，可能彼此(尤其是你)先存有愛=友『情』，然後才去認識對方。有了愛便有包容一切的胸襟。這是一種欣賞對方、尊敬對方的愛。當你愛對方，便有一種衝動或引力去接近和認識對方；但當你深入了解對方後有兩個可能性的存在：

一是由於深入認識對方，遂令彼此的愛意昇華到一個更高、更真、更美的境界；二是由於深入了解對方而拉遠了彼此的距離。因認識而產生了一種雙方可能不願存有卻又不可避免的 repulsive force。更甚時，可能彼此因此而各散東西，各走各路。

但願我們是屬於前者。

Mxxxx
26.1.91
5:46 pm」

十八歲的結束，十九歲的來臨，也是我的幸福破滅的時刻。坦白說，很不想重溫當時的感覺，請容許我含糊地交待吧。二月尾的Half term假期，我們安排了一起共住四天，也許期待太多、壓抑太多、我的經期快到......The love that dares not speak its name is being suppressed too much!您我之間的repulsive force也浮現了......從那時開始，我們不可以再繼續我們的romantic relationship。從那時開始，我永遠在空虛中打轉。

兩年前，與您再敘，您說您將會嫁給一個年長差不多二十年的西人。我衷心的祝福您與他幸福、快樂。我對您的眼光有信心。

至於我自己，也許把您想得太完美，就算有機緣，我也不願意與您在一起，唯恐會把我心目中完美的形象破滅。您已成為我的「標本」。請讓我得到釋放，請不要不斷地haunt我好嗎？請不要像Heathcliff的Cathy那般永遠纏繞著我的心......

「此情可待成追憶，
祇是當時已惘然。」

Death & Spiritual Reproduction

2005-05-08T10:13:00.000-07:00

from an online dialogue with some friends...

===============

29th October 2000

i'm thrilled to see so much discussion u guys are having on death.

i think i've been obsessed with the theme of death too, since a very young age, but never quite able to get the 'answer' i'm searching for. i remember when i was in kindergarten i used to ask my parents many times about what will happen to us after we die, and they were too 'honest' and said they didn't know. nevertheless, the catholic school i went to told me that we'll go to heaven or purgatory or hell (for that matter) after we die. i was never ambitious, so i used to think that i'll spend some time in purgatory before i enter heaven:)

later on in life (perhaps around form1), i began to think that heaven seemed to me to be a very boring and cold place. it seemed to be filled with blue light, and we'll have nothing to do there..... i personally prefer hot places, and hell is full of fire, what's so bad about it? (of course i dared not toy with the idea of entering hell^.^).

then came the idea of reincarnation from buddhism, which sounded a lot more interesting than going to heaven, and i began to like that idea more.
but after a while, i was in the sceptical phase of my life, being influenced by the scientific spirit, Descartes and other mad philosophers, i began to think that it's against my intellectual integrity to hold unfounded and unjustified beliefs. thus i began to lose my grasp on beliefs like reincarnation, life after death, heaven/hell ...

i still find it uncomfortable to think that 'i' will annihilate when i die. the only comfort i have, and i still have recourse to it these days, is a 'spiritual model' i borrowed from the genetic theory in biology, (and in fact Ann Frank said similar things too in her diary), namely, i will go on living through my works. because my 'blue print' will be left behind through my 'creation'. by creation i mean some artistic/creative works i've and will produce, as well as the (good) 'influence' i (will) have on the people in this world. i take it as my way of passing on my 'genes' (for i doubt i'll have my own biological children). and ppl who are or will be 'influenced' by me/my works will pass on their influence onto others, thus a 'spiritual reproduction' (as opposed to sexual reproduction) will occur. of course i myself is the spiritual reproduction of many great ppl, they are my family, teachers, friends, writers, artists, composers, scientists, beggers, prostitutes, strangers and what not. thus in a way, there is nothing that special about 'me', yet, since i am a synthesis of all those influences, i guess my blend is as unique as anyone else's, and i just like to have 'offsprings' :)

just like when i listen to the music of bach/tchaikovsky/elgar etc, i know they are living 'forever' through me and many other listeners!
i guess this belief of spiritual reporduction still keeps me going, and may be it's one of the reasons why i resist the idea of suicide, coz i still haven't done what i have to do.
there is an old song called 畫家 sung by Ah Lam, and the lyrics is by Mr Cheng. (sorry i can't type too many chinese characters, so please bear with my translation). in the lyrics it says the painter wishes that her (or his) soul can follow her creation and will never disappear/annihilate.

i guess since i began to hold the belief of spiritual reproduction, i've the wish to obtain my 'eternal life' thru this means, and this has somehow solved my problem about death. thus even if my stream consciousness will forever be extinguished, when i think about my 'spirit' that will live in other ppl's heart, perhaps it's not that bad after all.
besides, even if 'my consciousness' persists after my death, but if i'll have no memory of my (current) life, that stream of consciousness will be 'meaningless' from my present perspective. it's no different than the stream of consciousness of a stranger.

i often wonder perhaps what is meant by enlightenment or buddhahood is actually having the consciousness of all beings. (u may call this 'super-consciousness') thus 'i' am the mountain, the sea, the bunnies, the lions, the moon, hitler, al gore, julia roberts, a baby, a puppy, and what not. this is partly based on the assumption that every existence in the universe is interconnected. no one thing/being/person is absolutely isolated. thus even if there are so called good and evil in the world, they are just as much part of 'me' as anything else.
i think one of the buddhist branches, 天台, holds similar belief concerning the buddha nature.
i also think/fantacize that all beings in the universe can tape into this 'super conciousness' (or 'collective consciousness' as Carl Jung called it). coz we are all different 'facets' of this super being. once we 'sink' back to this super consciousness, this is perhaps what nibbana means, in my personal opinion.

and for the last few days i've some new thought about 'colour' and 'emptiness'. the buddhist has the equation of
colour=emptiness
i often find it quite hard to understand.
but few days ago, it suddenly occurs to me that since i've always been in the endless cycle of attachment and detachment of different objects, wouldn't that equation refer to the equilibrium of attachment and detachment; viz. enlightenment is when one is neither attached to nor detached from this world. it's the 'gap' between attachment and detachment, the 'gap' between life and death, the 'gap' between breathing in and breathing out.
these days i'm learning to enjoy the state of being neither attached nor detached. i don't know whether or not that's what i am really experiencing, nor whether i could maintain that equilibrium, coz it's so easy to be off the balance and become too involved in something, or too detached, and hence fantacizing too much about my own death. and i guess i'm more inclined towards the latter. yes, i guess i've what Freud calls the 'death wish'. not that i don't value life, but sometimes it's hard to see the point to carry on... (but once again, i won't consider suicide, so no need to call the Samaritans on my behave^.^)

perhaps u may find it mad or morbid, but i've the belief that the process of death is something worth waiting for, coz it appears to be such an orgasmic experience to me.
and i think there may be scientific (or my pseudo scientific) support to this claim.
my father told me that he watched a documentary on experiments done on astronauts who were under high centripetal force. according to the video they took on those astronauts, their facial expressions showed that they were in great pain and agony, and the equipment measures that the greater the centripetal force exerted to them, the less oxgen went to their brains., and they would loss consciousness at the end. it's a condition that is fairly near death....
after the experiments, the astronauts were asked about how they felt. they said they actually felt great and 'transcendental', as if the picture of their whole lives were out right in front of them.... it's the greatest experiences they have had!! and in fact many reports on near death experience (NDE) are quite positive, many ppl didn't want to return to this world, as they really enjoyed the 'other side', yet they usually have unfinished obligations (eg young children to care for), and hence had to come back....
perhaps the lack of oxgen to the brain may induce all these 'wonderful experiences'. that may be the reason why ppl have autoerotic asphyxiation. (NB i haven't tried it, nor will i be unloving enough to do such harm to my body!)
so, i think/hope that there will at least be one GREAT experience waiting for me when i'm dying.... it's perhaps something one can look forward to:)

oh god, sorry to be so long winded. but the above is my view of the universe, life/death, and i never told anyone about it in such details, mainly because i doubt ppl will be interested to listen to this kind of bull shit. hope u haven't fallen asleep yet hearing about my metaphysics:P

我與宗教無緣

2005-05-08T10:04:00.000-07:00

我與宗教無緣
斑比
2000/12/16

近年已經很少，亦很害怕作靈性反省。也許這是為了避免勾起內心對於靈性問題的種種矛盾。

最主要原因是靈性 (spirituality) 與形而上學 (metaphysics)是息息相關的，但是近年我對某些形而上的問題把持不定，因此害怕作靈性上的反省。

自幼稚園至中二，我都在天主教學校唸書。雖然由始至終我都對三位一體等的高深神學理論不太理解，但卻以極有限的認知能力，把天主教的世界觀照單全收。直至十四歲那年，在偶然的機會接觸了佛教，才作了人生第一次的靈性反省（或靈性變節）。

雖說反省，卻沒有因此而為思想帶來太大衝擊，而是慢慢的“移情別戀”，把人有永生的觀念改為生死輪迴，天堂改為涅槃，就連我深愛的聖母也轉化為觀音。

當年的移情別戀主要是覺得佛教的宇宙觀更能解釋人世間的種種現象例如，為何每個人的際遇都那麼不同、那麼的不平等。

雖然從來沒有皈依三寶，但我對這個“新歡”卻算“忠實”。往後的幾年，在我心中，佛教世界觀取代了天主教世界觀，成為新的真理！佛教觀讓我的思想得到新的解放。基於它，以及一位英國文學老師的影響，我愈來愈重視思想的開放 (open-mindedness)。這也是我選擇讀哲學的原因之一。原因之二，是當年的我迷信能夠從哲學中找到真理！

進入哲學糸，我漸漸對佛教變得“不忠”……我開始學會了Descartes的skepticism，對一切學說抱著懷疑的態度。我漸漸喪失了迷信權威的習慣，已經不能再把權威教義照單全收。

本來這對我的宗教觀衝擊並不大，因為我很少同時地思考不同範疇的議題，很少會把宗教和哲學混在一起思考，又或者把性取向與宗教扯上關係，所以不同的觀念能夠相安無事並存。但是，當我的哲學課題談到自由意志 (free will)，我一生中首次的思想衝突終於真正發生。經過數月的思想探索和鬥爭，最後我仍要忠於理性思考的結論：即是對自由意志的否定！（由於篇幅所限，這裡不討論為何把它否定）

沒有自由意志，人與機器或電腦無異，只不過是比較複雜、難了解而已。每當有某些input，便會有某些output；有某些因，便會有某些果。究竟“我”是甚麼﹖原來只不過是先天和後天的合成物。緣聚則生、緣散敗滅，“我”沒有甚麼大不了，“我”亦沒有甚麼本質可言。

對，我是相信定命論(determinism)！但這不代表我不相信個人的力量和努力能改善情況；正因為有因果關係，努力也是成功的因素之一，然而，個人的力量有多少，以及會否有那份原動力去作改善，則要視乎當時有甚麼先天、後天，以及環境等因素去決定，而那些因素卻又在“我”的掌握以外。（例如有些人天生性格懶惰，身邊又沒有人或事去激發他去上進，不論是先天、後天，抑或環境因素都把他塑造成懶惰的人，“他”便是所有不同因素的產物）我信一切是註定的，但究竟如何註定，恐怕只有天知。

很多人會以為我信了determinism之後，人會變得很悲觀。相反，我發覺自己的量度大了許多，人亦“化”了不少。因為每當想到一些對自己不好的人或事都是必然的發生，怒氣便會滅退。例如某人惡言相向，原因是來自種種先天、後天、環境等因素，換句話說，“錯”不在那人的“自身”，而是來自構成那人的因素；因此，我倒不如責怪那些因素﹖但是，那些因素又是由其他因素所引致，如此類推，罪魁禍首原來不是誰，而是一連串無止境的因果關係。然而，為何會有這一連串的因果連鎖關係，就只有天知了。

雖然，每個人都感覺到自己有選擇的意識，但是正如叔本華(Schopenhauer)所說，"A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants."換句話說，我們不能選擇我們的選擇，ultimately, this is a brute fact that we choose what we choose! （一個沒有原因的原因）

信了determinism之後，雖然失去了"Agency"和"autonomy"的信念，卻換來寬恕、體量的心，人變得隨和些，這已經是很大的得著。

在那段時期，除了掙扎於自由意志的問題，我亦開始對佛學義理產生批判，尤其對涅槃這個概念。漸漸開始認為證入涅槃——與升上天堂一般，是多麼無聊的一回事！入了這個不生不滅、脫離了生死流轉、七情六欲的境地，究竟有甚麼好呢﹖有甚麼吸引呢﹖時至今日，我仍聽不懂這個在佛學中極為重要的概念。它和三位一體或原罪等概念一樣那麼令人摸不著頭腦！自那時開始，我對佛學已產生了反抗之心。

往後的哲學課程，更促使我與佛教“分居”。尤其是personal identity這一個學科，更使我不得不認同John Locke的辨證有關記憶與personal identity的關係。這次的思考對之前所持的輪迴思想衝擊很大。沒有前生的記憶，就算說前生我是阿甲，那與現在的我又有何關係呢﹖再加上唯物論的“吸引”，使我不得不用不可知或懷疑的態度來看輪迴。

我害怕人死如燈滅的觀念，也許因為希望死後也能重遇相識的人，所以我希望有輪迴（或者life after death in general.） But a wish is merely a wish, I can't use wishful thinking to compromise my intellectual integrity.因此，我近年已不太想去思考這些形而上的問題，亦不知為何地覺得這些問題已經不太重要。漸漸能夠安於Sextus Empiricus的Pyrrhonism那種suspension of judgment (on metaphysics)。然而，這不代表我不再執著。這只顯示我離開了“老年人”的沉思期，而踏進“青春期”的行動階段。注意力慢慢地轉移至某些non-metaphysical ideals的執著。例如對universal love和公義的追求，著重於身體力行多於沉思。當然，這些追求背後不是沒有一些metaphysical justification，雖然我不知道有沒有輪迴或涅槃或天主或天堂，但我仍深信一些unjustifiable beliefs，就是相信一切有情（即有知覺的生命）都是互相扣連，萬物一體的。

雖然我已沒有做祈禱或坐下來參禪，但卻越來越可以在每天的生活當中感受到有情與有情之間的情，以及百花齊放當中的包容與和諧，我亦願每天能夠多點身體力行這些信念。人生行到這裡，雖然仍無法投入團體宗教，卻換來豐富的精神生活，以及實際行動的青春期。夫復何求?