クズの本懐

瞓唔著，快手煲咗轉《クズの本懐》。

其實劇情寫得幾好。女性作者嘅痕跡有啲太明顯，但係可以一套青春劇入面描寫十個八個角色，個個都係仆街自私精，仲要有起乘轉合收到尾疑似半個大團圓結局講啲角色嘅成長，真係好難得。

唔知一般人高中嗰陣啲愛情遊戲玩得幾複雜，但啲七國咁亂嘅關係圖，唔知點解梗係有種強烈嘅真實感。

耶穌老師

由於從來都唔信教，細個讀經聖總以為耶穌係個老千。

而家知道世俗嘅宗教係咩嚟，就更加唔會「信耶穌」，不過偶然睇返/諗返聖經入面耶穌講過嘅嘢，重新細嚼，就越嚟越覺得佢係有啲料到。

例如我早幾年參與「傳道」工作 （文化傳道，唔係宗教傳道），諗返起「撒種嘅寓言」，就發現原來佢係講緊訊息嘅傳播要越廣越好，唔需要在意或挑選受眾，最後訊息被發揚光大嘅地方，亦未必喺你原本預算範圍（比較近似嘅現代理論係所謂「黑天鵝」）。

（而事實上基督教後嚟成為羅馬帝國國教，歐洲最主流宗教，如今傳承到世界各地，但耶穌本身係向猶太人傳道嘅，偏偏猶太人唔受佢嗰套，幾百年後俾羅馬帝國攞咗嚟用。如果早期基督教冇廣泛「撒種」嘅精神，固步自封，最後好可能被歷史淘汰。）

當然，世俗嘅教會同你講撒種嘅寓言唔會同你解釋任何嘢，甚至明明原文寫得好清晰，佢哋都會 tone down 咗，只係叫大家作為信徒就要「信」，你最好信到頭頂生幾十顆果實𠻹。呢種模糊解讀係好普遍，明明內容可以深入闡釋，啲講聖經嘅人通常都只係重覆返回主旋律：「總之信就啱㗎喇」。有時夾雜幾句講者個人對人世間道德嘅理解（通常九唔搭八）。佢哋講得多，我聽得多，自然會誤會聖經講嘅嘢係廢嘅。

對於世俗大眾嚟講，好大部份聖經講嘅嘢真係廢嘅。因為耶穌唔只係點化世人，佢係「老師嘅老師」。所以佢會用寓言去講道，預咗一般群眾唔明，但只會向小圈子（當日嘅門徒，日後世人嘅老師）解釋細節內容。事實上主流嘅基督教s所側重嘅嘢，包括祈禱、信仰、仁愛，對唔係走「老師路線」嘅普通人已經好夠。而一般人亦唔使明白呢啲嘢點解有用，的確真係信咗就夠。

我唔知啲基督教s內部點樣教呢啲嘢，不過睇返眾多歷史悠久嘅文化圈，佢哋都somehow有辦法。例如孔子老師創立咗嘅儒家思想，世俗化之後不時變成所謂「吃人的禮教」，四書五經啲內容俾人「超譯」完變咗守舊嘅思想，但真正精研儒學嘅人其實somehow都有方法傳承到孔子原本嘅精神。（我估佛家都係差唔多。）

古籍嘅原文真係好重要。雖然啲偉人通常都冇咩親筆嘅著作，但由其直接影響嘅「初代老師s」寫嘅嘢，總有一定嘅道理。而呢啲道理只要以原文（或近似原文）嘅方式流傳，就唔受後嚟世俗嘅模糊化處理，有心人應該還原得到本來嗰啲道理嘅核心。

呢啲真係「明就明」。

今年年頭又明多咗「耶穌被魔鬼誘惑」講緊乜。呢個唔係講笑，如果我早年聰慧少少，可能人生會走少啲「冤枉路」(*)，不過起碼而家(再?)踏上「主觀事實」路線，真係要不斷攞呢個故事嚟警惕自己，以免走火入魔。一般世俗人士邊需要學呢啲？世上嘅誘惑多的是，不過大部份都唔係「魔鬼」嘅引誘嚟。一般人會認為自己可以變麵包出嚟、會測試自己有冇練成不死身，會想做到世界統治者咩？唔係㗎嘛。只係自以為有神力嘅人先會出現呢啲諗法。大家讀聖經要記呢個故仔，純粹係為咗傳承啲只得極少數人如我需要知嘅嘢。除咗多謝耶穌大佬之外都唔知可以講啲乜。

無端端寫咁多字咩原因，純粹係讀約翰福音第三章有感：「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」

約翰第三章講緊耶穌同友好嘅猶太教長老尼哥底母交流砌搓下。耶穌話：「風隨意吹嚟，你聞佢聲，唔知佢邊處嚟，邊處去。但凡由聖神（i.e. 靈魂）生嘅都係噉樣。」當尼哥底母「黑人問號」嗰陣，耶穌就笑佢：「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」

睇到呢度忽然就好感慨。的確古今中外啲「老師」其實都係鑽研緊呢啲問題，冇其他。「教科書」唔會教呢啲嘢，就算啲小眾著作有提及，都只會係用啲隱晦嘅比喻去講（耶穌已經好直白）。我諗感慨嘅位係，雖然我係咁話呢門學問叫「主觀事實」，但似乎喺任何時空嘅合資格「老師」都會有呢啲基礎知識，側面證明真理雖然全靠「主觀」，但終點就算唔係得一個，都係鄰近嘅，大家都互相睇到對方。（孔老師點解相對弱少少，大概就係唔講鬼神。但又咁講，佢高調生活都有七十歲命，似乎都係靠佢唔講鬼。見下。）

不過若果要去到觸摸到真理嘅位置，就冇「按部就班」嘅法門，只能靠智慧同機遇。主觀事實無所憑證，因人而異，所以啲嘢講唔到。然後疑似宇宙有禁止「劇透」同「開外掛」嘅不文規則。「劇透」同「開外掛」嘅後果，淨係睇住耶穌老師嘅下場都心有餘悸。（雖然佢話係一早部署好，但佢亦都冇話唔係透過違反宇宙禁制令去達到佢嘅下場...。至於慘死對救世有咩關係，我暫時仲未完全參透得到...）你話呢啲嘢有冇證據，我只會話呢個世界冇任何人係高調開外掛而長壽善終嘅。歷史上大把各種形式開外掛嘅人，有啲「只係」天才，有啲就真係有神聖力量，通常都冇咩善終。諗諗下又諗起一個：貞德。

我諗個重點都係，大家好奇心重，靜靜雞同宇宙玩下膠，遇到同道互相砌搓下，應該都係容許嘅，所以先至會有「乜你做老師都唔識呢啲嘢咩？」嘅調侃。雖然我係咁揶揄啲世俗宗教將耶穌老師教嘅嘢模糊化，但其實偶然（通常都係紅白事）去到教堂聽耶教嘅老師（佢哋通常叫牧師或神父）講道理，其實都會有少少共鳴嘅。唔係話我覺得佢哋講嘅嘢好有道理，而係⋯⋯會有種「呀！我知你講緊乜！」嘅感覺。eh... 唔識講，大概係遇到同行嗰種熟悉感啩。

-----

(* 理論上呢個世界上就冇咩冤枉路嘅⋯ 條條路都一樣咁直，每人每六十秒就過一分鐘。不過通俗就係咁講啦。) 

知

最近先發現原來我啲 intuition 可能比想像中更加唔尋常，與其話係聰明，或者更似超能力....。

好多時我對（比較熟悉嘅議題）會有個好快速嘅判斷，結論行先，然後先慢慢砌返個推論邏輯出嚟。正常會覺得咁樣肯定成日錯，但我通常係啱嘅 （起碼認真諗就會諗得返點推論啲嘢⋯）。我以前上司成日提我做決定要講得出原因，因為我一開始係做決定講唔出原因嘅 （不過肯定係啱）。係後嚟訓練多咗先至會嘔得返啲原因出嚟，不過仍然係有結論先。

另外，好多人話咩「女人嘅直覺好準」，我自己嘅觀察就係女人嘅直覺好L唔準 （只不過係佢哋自以為啱）。而男人唔興用直覺嘅，聽聞係咁。

Elaboration on Subjective Truths

Subjective Truth is correlated to the idea of universal connectedness - that it rejects the idea that the object and subject can be cleanly separated (as is typical in Objective Truth).  That any change in one part of the whole can affect the whole. We cannot always understand the totality of all that is, since we are limited beings that can only see the whole from our personal perspective.

Subjective Truth does not rely on probability or statistics. Events that probability theory say are possible/probable has no meaning if they are not actually experienced. For example, something with a proclaimed 99% chance to happen has no meaning if they don't actually come to pass. (However, in Objective Truth, 99% chance actually means that, if you repeat the incident 100 times, it will be experienced in 99 of them - Objective Truth insists that events can be repeated, whereas Subjective Truth rejects this very idea).

Subjective Truth does not derive knowledge from probabilities. Instead, it uses intuition. As far as Bayesian probability is compatible with Subjective Truth, Subjective Truth provides the priors. The priors are from intuition - knowledge without evidence. Bayesian inference only provides a tool to derive nominal probabilities when the intuition is relatively weak, for unfamiliar topics, etc. It also helps to rectify the intuition if it is wrong (intuitions are sometimes wrong, but to those who subscribe to Subjective Truth, they are less often wrong than would be implied by Objective Truth views).

Since Subjective Truth does not rely on statistics, rejects the notion of repeatability, and derives knowledge without evidence, Subjective Truth cannot be communicated (at least not objectively). It is alleged that metaphors, stories and parables facilitate this task, but the process is less of communication than a belief that the encoded messages somehow brought about understanding on other side. Note that Subjective Truth cannot be communicated even to oneself. The solution exists without a reason.

The lack of reasoning implies the need for trust. For example, you would tell a child not to put his hand into boiling water -- but he may be unable to understand the reason (eg. what are third-degree burns). The child must take your word on trust. In the same way, accepting solutions from intuition without proof requires trust. This also applies to one's self. The only way to utilize one's own intuition is to be in the habit of being brutally honest with oneself. If you routinely lie to yourself, there is no way to trust your own intuitions since there is no way to tell them from lies.

As a matter of my subjective belief, the Universe seems to conspire to maintain consistency with Objective Truth (or more easily understood as "no magic"). Perhaps this is not a conspiracy from the Universe, but a conspiracy among ourselves -- the weight our modern society places on Science and Capitalism compels us to accept the tenets of Objective Truth, that whatever is repeatable (Science) and massively scalable (Capitalism) is true; everything else is left to wither away as "Unscientific".

The sober scientist accepts that *in theory* there could be real phenomena that exists but is not repeatable, i.e. that cannot be described by general laws. In practice, they consider there is no evidence of such (despite historical accounts of such things happening, which they generally disregard as fictional curiosities unsuitable for serious investigation), and regardless they firmly believe (intuitively!?) that we can come up with general laws that adequately describe the universe to arbitrary precision. (Even given the well known problem of "the problem of induction".)

Under this social context, when *by definition* what is known by Science and capable of Capitalism is considered "not magic", it is a corollary that "magic", if it exists at all, must be the total negation of Objective Truth - i.e. unrepeatable, intuitive (no proof), and difficult to communicate.

Of course, there are intermediaries between the extremes -- otherwise it would be meaningless to speak about extreme Subjective Truths at all (since this is an attempt to communicate what they are). Instead, the "quasi-magical" phenomena are low probability events that are not unrepeatable but require peculiar settings that cannot be reproduced in a science lab. They happen often enough for some people to detect a vague pattern, at the threshold that it can be brushed away as coincidence. Or they are subjective experiences that can be explained by way of hallucination. It is these phenomena that is worth discussing (or discussing about discussing).

The purely subjective experience of Subjective Truth phenomena is in some way the only way to initiate one into the community of Subjective Truth. It cannot be denied that Science and Capitalism have almost (except in Quantum Physics) completely explained the Universe in terms of Objective Truth. There is truly no *need* for anyone to use Subjective Truth (to live in modern society). Those who "believe" Subjective Truth when told by others are on shaky grounds due to the risks of misplaced trust. There is a saying, "trust, but verify" - in Subjective Truth it is difficult or impossible to verify, so misplaced trust can lead one down very wrong paths. While it is a good habit to presume honesty and authenticity even with wild claims, it does not mean one should blindly take as Truth whatever is claimed by a "random" person. In short, I don't think it's possible/feasible for an uninitiated person to understand the iceberg without seeing its tip. Once the tip is seen, only then the question becomes "how deep does it go?" (Otherwise, the only reasonable take is to believe that the ocean is vast and empty.)

Perspectives

暫時咁先

csv

,Objective Truth,Subjective Truth,God's Eye View

Tenets,There is one single Truth that everybody can agree upon,My personal perspective is the one that is relevant to me (?),one is all all is one

Unrealistic Ideal,We can chop up the universe into discrete bits and observe them in isolation,Everything is connected; I am one with the universe,??

Limitations,Breaks down in quantum scales due to observer effect,Cannot be proven or communicated to others (often not even to oneself),"Lack of perspective implies lack of meaning; for mere mortals, infeasible to process *everything* at once"

Benefits,Reproducible by anyone (in theory),Undeniably real given the subjective context,Is actually the Truth

Applicable Domain,"Science, Capitalism","Spirituality, Personal growth","God, God-wannabe"

Probability,"Classical statistics, whether Frequentist or Bayesian","Statistics don't apply, Bayesian only marginally useful","When everything is known, probability is meaningless"

The world is much more malleable than you think

What if the world is much more malleable than we thought, and we're not seeing results just because we are impatient?

From observations, it seems that most people wishing for the same thing over say a 10 year period got what they wanted (or they became crazy). The power of the mind coupled with action is super powerful. Modern society doesn't *really* teach this -- they do, as a moral tale, but like, it can be presented as entirely fictional, and often doesn't get the details right.

There's even a tale about 愚公移山. But I haven't seen any teachers actually grasp the proper moral of the story (the story itself toned itself down a bit too).

What people don't realize is that, 10 years is a fucking long time, and a substantial part (say 20%?) of your "productive" life. Most people don't achieve much, not because of lack of talent, but because they: (1) don't focus enough on important goals (i.e. allow "unimportant" things fill up their life), and (2) actively sabotage themselves in various ways including working in the opposite direction they wish to.

[There is a point to be made that the *stated* goal may not be the true goal, and one's true goal may (as perverse at it sounds) actually be to experience failure and stagnation in life.]

Or, to put it in positive terms, if you spend say 10 years focused on a goal and align your mind and body towards the goal, chances are that you'll succeed or at least have gone a long way. (Especially when compared with others that didn't focus and align.)

It's also interesting to point out how the opposite narrative is actively taught in schools, which is the virtue of "hard work". Before I dissect the concept, it must be stated clearly that "work" is fine. The problem is "hard work", and especially the idea that the "harder" the work, the better. It's as if suffering is a virtue on its own.

Some people's true goals may include experiencing suffering, which is fine for those who choose that path. But it's not fine for others, especially if state-funded/state-approved institutions force-feed the idea of self-inflicted suffering on young and gullible minds. Work is definitely not better when harder. In fact, work feels "hard" when the body rejects the idea of a particular type of work, and it gets into a conflicted state (disagreement between the rational mind and the body over whether the work needs doing). The work is worse when it feels hard.

Schools do not teach "non-hard work", which has significant overlap with what they call "play". This is probably because schools as a state-approved institution (often with parents' support) want to mold children into some specific form, and in most cases the form does not align with students' natural inclinations. Most students are not naturally inclined to be good at algebra, at the history of WW2, or at remembering obscure grammar rules. (Natural selection has not caught up to modern society yet.) So the presumption from teachers is that to get a student from their uninitiated state to the desired form, the process must involve "hard work". It must overcome any natural resistance by force. The expectations of the state and of society must prevail. The human spirit is naturally quite strong, so the transformation is indeed, "hard work". This context must be kept in mind while interpreting how morals are understood in a school setting.

And thus teachers, among all people, don't or can't really understand "non-hard work". "Non-hard work" is the kind that aligns the mind, body, and, ideally,  societal expectations. (The last part is the hard part which nobody knows how to do consistently, so they give up and defer to a standard ideal "form".) Those who haven't experienced the wonders of such alignment would be amazed at how fast and efficiently things progress. They usually call this "genius". "Genius" is actually a thing, but often what they call "genius" is much more mundane, i.e. just a natural alignment of mind, body, and goals, doing "non-hard work".

Most people don't actually connect action and thought. This takes on a couple different forms.

Some people fantasize about things, but never take action. Plans to quit a boring job and start a new venture. Plans to eat more healthily and exercise more. Plans to travel around the world. Many people don't actually do it -- there are obviously *reasons*, but the bottom line is -- if you keep think about one thing and do another, you won't do a good job at either. This is a mis-alignment problem.

Some people worry. I'm a avid believer of Murphy's Law (while many "worriers" probably aren't), but when I say "worry", it's usually not followed by an action to mitigate a risk. When people say they are "worried about the stock market", are they selling all their stock? When people say they are "worried that a war will break out", are they stockpiling on food and water and moving to a safer place? When people say they are "worried that their spouse might be cheating on them", can they actually do anything about it? If no actions are done or can be done, the whole mental exercise is in vain. This is another mis-alignment problem.

And then there are those who sabotage themselves. It's the friend who calls you on the phone and complains for 3 hours how horrible their romantic partner was to them... but refuses to break up because "but I still love him/her". It's the disgruntled employee who complains about their boss at every opportunity, but never offers the resignation they should. It's the person who claims they want to be rich, but spends all their money irresponsibly.

These modes of "inaction" are so common that in some sense they are the "default" state of affairs. It is widely considered a faux pas to suggest taking some form of action when people come to one for advice on how to deal with these situations. Imagine that.

Against this backdrop it is easy to see how, if you actually aligned thoughts and action, you'd go quite far relative to the common person. The world becomes much more malleable because your personal impact is greater.

Why don't more people do this then? Because 10 years is a fucking long time, and nobody wants to "waste" it on something unimportant. There are so many things one *could* do in life, but among all the options, it is often difficult to choose one among many to focus on for 10 years. And thus those with options lose focus through "diversification" -- attempting to do a bit of everything, or perhaps "nothing" at all.

The idle person does not idle only because they hate "work". The idle person does not appreciate the "value" gained by putting effort into "work". It is fundamentally not a question of work ethic, but a question of understanding of their own meaning, purpose, and values. The same goes for the confused person with no direction in life -- it is not a question of work or "hard work", but rather an issue of focus and alignment, which in turn comes down to questions of meaning, purpose, and values.

We can all expend "life" as a currency to change a small part of the world. It is that malleable. The question is, what is worth a significant part of "life"? Some people find an answer that addresses great problems with the world, and become great people. Some people find an answer in living a personal experience. They leave the world content with treasured memories. The cynical say "nothing", yet they too must live and die.

Dreams

Dreams

Diabetes

Depression

Pyridoxal-5-phosphate

ADHD

Not entirely sure about P5P, but the other 4 jumped at the same time (talking about ~16 years ago). There's gotta be some unholy connection here...