凌晨三點的夏龍

寫到二之二的時候，其實已經有些煩了…畢竟要把所有的內容完全寫出來是不可能的，但有趣的著實不少，上一篇已經針對不受歡迎及缺錢的心理慰藉作了說明，現下就針對關於心碎及挫折的哲學心理建設作簡單的介紹。
簡單的來說，當面對挫折的時候，包括失去權位、金錢、朋友甚至是生命，我們通常會痛苦或是憤怒，而該如何走進哲學的生命中來面對呢？
導致我們發怒的，正是“危險地”自以為世界和其他人應是何種樣貌的“樂觀”想法。
其實若以我個人粗淺的佛學知識來說，這不正是佛學所說「身外物」，當不拘泥於表象時，是否失去也就不那麼令人悲傷。

哲學...一個看起來與我們生活息息相關，但一提到卻又人人頭大的課題。自古以來，只要有人類的地方，無不從「人所存的意義」或是「人的行事準則」等方向開始，去尋找生命的意義，但正因為人是如此的複雜，致使每個哲學論述，無不以大部書作為收場，除非是對哲學非常有興趣的人，要搬著那些如同枕頭的書，在繞口又難懂的文字中，找出邏輯規律幾乎是根本不可能的事...(不信...請參閱敝人所書之-建築現象學相關文章)。

而這本三百多頁的文學小品，則完全提供一個不同進入哲學的路徑，而實際上也正是哲學正應該扮演的角色。簡單來說，誠如書名所云：哲學的慰藉...便是藉由哲學的邏輯提供一個自我安慰的路徑，包括不受歡迎、缺錢、遭遇挫折、心碎等六項。試分述如下：

一、不受歡迎：基本上每個人都希望成為人見人愛的可人兒，但是如果不是呢？如果你發現很多人都對妳有所誤解時，該如何自處呢？以下這句話大概可以說明，當蘇格拉底在受五百人的審判被判需服下毒酒時的心理。

如果一個人......很認真的看待（他的訓練），他是要毫不區分地注意所有的讚揚、批評和意見，還是只注意出自有資格者如真正的醫生或訓練者的意見。......那麼，他應該害怕有資格者的批評並欣然接受他的讚揚，而不是一般大眾的話語。

 

所以評論的價值取決於批評的思考過程，而非人數的多寡或其社會地位。

可是反推到現今的民主制度，不正有點這種邏輯上的弔詭嗎？多數人的決定真的是正確的決定嗎？如果不是在一個合理的邏輯下產生的共同意見，不正如同不區分地注意所有的讚揚、批評和意見嗎？而這二千多年來，從希臘到現在，人類到底有什麼進步呢？所以，當我們遇到眾人的批評或讚揚時，其實不必立刻覺得沮喪或是喜悅，而是應該認真的思考，這些"眾人"究竟是"一般的話語"還是"專業的指導"。

但如此的心理慰藉有時會在某些"自我感覺良好"者身上見到完全相反的效果，不論批評者是意見是否"專業"，通常反而更有一種捨我其誰的奇怪念頭，似乎別人的不歡迎反而強化他自身存在的價值，這完全不是蘇格拉底的意圖，不受歡迎並不是事情對錯的根本原因，如果以"不受歡迎"作為判斷的依據，不論結果如何，都是一個可笑的邏輯論述。

觀念或行為的正當性，並非取決於是否被廣泛地相信或唾棄，而是依據它是否遵守邏輯規則，被多數人駁斥的論證並不表示是錯的，但，也不表示就是對的。

二、缺錢(這剛好是我最不需要的慰藉-不是有錢到一個不行，而是因為缺錢習慣了，這些慰藉我早就了了)

這似乎是現今所有人共同的問題，幾乎所有人一天中或多或少都會遇到這類的議題，報紙、電視上的新聞議題，除了政治外幾乎不脫金錢相關議題(其實政治也有很大一部份也是金錢議題...不論是白金或是黑金)，正面的部份包括股票、經濟、房地產的資訊，負面的部份則涵蓋金錢糾紛、經濟犯罪、違法開發等等，哪一件事與金錢無關呢？每個人見面談論的不也是"你最近薪水幾何？"、"你投資什麼股票？"、"你如何逃漏稅？"、"你繳多少稅？"...，但，在M型社會的理論上...我們如果沒有站到富有的那邊，那我們很可能就會走到貧窮的那端，而依我看嘛...的確也有很貧窮端移動的傾向...，所以還是先強化一下自己的心理建設吧!!

文中一開始先列舉了一份"快樂"清單，幾乎涵蓋了一個人可能有的夢想，包括別墅、飛機、金錢、避暑勝地的木屋、頂級廚師、大浴室、大床(要知道有多美好，請自行參閱書中詳述...哦...沒看他說明，我還真不知有錢人都在搞這些事兒~)，其次作者開始描述一個二千多年前，由伊比鳩魯提出一個以"愉悅是快樂生活的開始與目標"為主體論述的生命哲學派別，本文不著重在未來的年月中，伊比鳩魯學說被誤會的有多嚴重(在牛津英文辭典中有奢華、感官上、貪心之義)，其實對伊比鳩魯而言，哲學的任務在於幫助我們解釋苦難與欲望的不明波動，進而將我們從追求快樂的錯誤計畫中解放出來，因為如同醫學上的經驗來推斷，依照身體上的感知來治療並不一定是正確的(例如為解決腦袋瓜的壓迫而採取的放血手術)，就如同我們對快樂的認知一般。

當來自欲望的痛苦解除時，簡樸的菜餚和奢華的盛宴提供同樣的愉悅。

實際上這位哲學家對愉悅的品味正好與先前所描述的"快樂"清單並不相同，伊比鳩魯並未住在豪宅中；喝水勝過喝酒；麵包、蔬菜與橄欖的晚餐。而在其理性的分析愉悅的構成要素後，他列了一張他的"快樂"清單，而最妙的是，他並不昂貴。

在眾多欲望之中，有些是自然且必要的，有些是自然欲不必要的，有些是不自然也不必要的。

簡單來說，該清單著重的不是生活有多富裕或是吃住有多奢華，而是在於心靈上的富足，而心靈上的富足其實是不用花錢的，其中包括了"友誼"、"自由"、"思想"、"陋室"。

如果昂貴的東西不能帶給我們非凡的快樂，為何我們會如此強列的被他吸引？原因在於一種類似偏頭痛患者在一邊鑽洞所犯下的錯誤；因為昂貴的事物讓人誤以為能滿足那些其實我們並不瞭解的需求，這些事物以物質的層面模仿我們在精神層面上希求的東西。

就如同現在廣告商在製作廣告時，總是希望在物品推銷時帶著某種精神層面的意涵，例如SUV之於愛好自然與自由；手機之於友誼與效率；飾品之於愛情或親情...，更惶論那些精心營造情境的建商廣告。

走筆至此，回頭列我的自己清單時，其實相較其所提出的，又增加了"健康"、"愛情"及"好書"等要件，但是，當欲求之而不可得時，又該如何面對與自我慰藉呢？就請看第三回及第五回的遭遇挫折及心碎的慰藉囉~

 

有件事，非得快速的在BL上記下來不可，因為腦袋太差記不住。那天聽侯文詠的節目，來賓是…(沒記，我查清楚再修正)，當天的訪談主要是在聊到來賓在榮總的三十一個朋友的活動。先直接跳到本文的重點…因為沒時間，今天一早都在修部落格，雖然是在跑圖，但還是有很嚴重虧欠老板的感覺。簡言之，來賓在數年前兒子(或女兒)因為癌症過世(約莫同時父母俱亡、婚姻亮燈、公司負債累累…)，不是要說她究竟有多不幸，而是要說他的天使在美國接受治療的時候，因為太痛苦而不願意接受治療，但看到媽媽的淚眼就說：「好吧，我還是繼續接受治療，但要記得哦，要幫我畫一張回家的地圖…因為我怕在美國會找不到方向回家…」(好啦，我承認我說的很差，但這句話加上後來伍佰唱的歌，讓正在上班的我，差點淚如雨下…)，而且也在兩個小時後，把那原本上班上的一肚子火的老婆大人，也搞的一把眼淚的。


希望大家有空可以參加，應該是每個月的第二個禮拜的禮拜二，在榮總小兒癌末病房，去陪陪那些小天使們。陪他們玩、陪他們瘋、陪他們唱歌、陪他們說故事。

From The Economist print edition ^ | Dec 19th 2006 | Editorial

Capitalism can make a society rich and keep it free. Don't ask it to make you happy as well

HAVING grown at an annual rate of 3.2% per head since 2000, the world economy is over half way towards notching up its best decade ever. If it keeps going at this clip, it will beat both the supposedly idyllic 1950s and the 1960s. Market capitalism, the engine that runs most of the world economy, seems to be doing its job well.

But is it? Once upon a time, that job was generally agreed to be to make people better off. Nowadays that's not so clear. A number of economists, in search of big problems to solve, and politicians, looking for bold promises to make, think that it ought to be doing something else: making people happy.

The view that economics should be about more than money is widely held in continental Europe. In debates with Anglo-American capitalists, wily bons vivants have tended to cite the idea of “quality of life” to excuse slower economic growth. But now David Cameron, the latest leader of Britain's once rather materialistic Conservative Party, has espoused the notion of “general well-being” (GWB) as an alternative to the more traditional GDP. In America, meanwhile, inequality , over-work and other hidden costs of prosperity were much discussed in the mid-term elections; and “wellness” (as opposed to health) has become a huge industry, catering especially to the prosperous discontent of the baby-boomers .

The things you never knew you wanted

Much of this draws on the upstart science of happiness, which mixes psychology with economics (see article). Its adherents start with copious survey data, such as those derived from the simple, folksy question put to thousands of Americans every year or two since 1972: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?” Some of the results are unsurprising: the rich report being happier than do the poor. But a paradox emerges that requires explanation: affluent countries have not got much happier as they have grown richer. From America to Japan, figures for well-being have barely budged.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities—bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed. But the flip side of this genius is that people come to take for granted things they once coveted from afar. Frills they never thought they could have become essentials thatthey cannot do without. People are stuck on a treadmill : as they achieve a better standard of living, they become inured to its pleasures.

Capitalism's ability to take things downmarket also has its limits. Many of the things people most prize—such as the top jobs, the best education, or an exclusive home address—are luxuries by necessity. An elite schooling, for example, ceases to be so if it is provided to everyone. These “positional goods”, as they are called, are in fixed supply: you can enjoy them only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to grab them depends on how much your rivals are putting in.
Some economists think the results cast doubt on the long-held verities of their discipline. The dismal science traditionally assumes that people know their own interests, and are best left to mind their own business. How much they work, and what they buy, is their own affair. A properly brought-up economist seeks to explain their decisions, not to quarrel with them. But the new happiness gurus are much less willing to defer to people's choices.

Take work, for instance. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes imagined that richer societies would become more leisured ones, liberated from toil to enjoy the finer things in life. Yet most people still put in a decent shift . They work hard to afford things they think will make them happy, only to discover the fruits of their labour sour quickly. They also aspire to a higher place in society's pecking order , but in so doing force others in the rat race to run faster to keep up. So everyone loses.

Yet it is not self-evident that less work would mean more happiness. In America, when the working week has shortened, the gap has been filled by assiduous TV-watching . As for well-being, other studies show that elderly people who stop working tend to die sooner than their peers who labour on. Indeed, another side of happiness economics busies itself studying the non-monetary rewards from work: most people enjoy parts of their work, and some people love it.

As for capitalism's wasteful materialism, even Adam Smith had a problem with it. “How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility? ” he complained. It is hard to claim that pyramid-shaped tea-bags (developed at great expense over four years) have added much to the sum of human happiness. Yet if capitalism sometimes persuades people to buy stuff they only imagine they want, it also appeals to tastes and aptitudes they never knew they had. In the arts, this is called “originality ” and is venerated . In commerce it is called “novelty ” and too often dismissed. But without the urge for material improvement, people would still be wearing woollen underwear and holidaying in Bognor rather than Bhutan. Would that be so great?

The joys of niche capitalism

If growth of this kind does not make people happy, stagnation will hardly do the trick. Ossified societies guard positional goods more, not less, jealously. A flourishing economy, on the other hand, creates what biologists call “a tangled bank” of niches, with no clear hierarchy between them. Tyler Cowen, of George Mason University, points out that America has more than 3,000 halls of fame, honouring everyone from rock stars and sportsmen to dog mushers, pickle-packers and accountants. In such a society, everyone can hope to come top of his particular monkey troop, even as the people he looks down on count themselves top of a subtly different troop.

To find the market system wanting because it does not bring joy as well as growth is to place too heavy a burden on it. Capitalism can make you well off. And it also leaves you free to be as unhappy as you choose. To ask any more of it would be asking too much.

上文為讀罷2007/01/08中國時報陸以正專欄後之延伸閱讀，目前僅為記錄於此，待讀罷後另行記錄心得。

約莫上上個禮拜(這是舊文…所以參考用)，在與同事談笑用餐的場合，在接近結束的時候，碰巧在當期的商周讀到了何先生的這篇文章「反射神經的記憶--論專業」，但在時間的限縮下，只能約略記得文章的大意，也就一直念著想把正確的文章擇日另行拜讀，結果工作一來，一拖數日。
今天適逢工作告一段落，遠出用餐之際，特地將該篇文章擇其精華摘錄如下，他日再另行分析。
「專業就是把正確的思考、正確的作為，經過不斷學習訓練之後，成為『反射神經記憶』，當你對某一件事的正確作法，擁有反射神經記憶，你就是擁有某一種專業。」
「專業不只要徹底瞭解，而且要反覆練習，並且設立高檢查標準，針對每一次的工作都能穩定達到高標準，這才有可能真正擁有專業。因此擁有『反射神經記憶』，代表的是專業存在的先決條件，你可以在不加思索下完成，如果加上思索，代表你想讓專業更上層樓，有更新的突破。」

本期的建築師雜誌有三大主軸，分別是“百貨商城”設計、衛武營藝術中心競圖及安藤忠雄的風潮，初閱後就有一堆“意見”跑出來，多話的我又苦無人可訴，沒錯~只好把這些話寫給星巴克的衛生紙和可能收到的你。(原文是寫在星巴克的擦手紙上) (附帶一提：星巴克和摩斯的擦手紙真的是寫東西的好紙…)

首先是百貨商城的部份，當然是泛指當月的幾棟大型設計，分別有三門、KPF及…忘了…(反正也是外國公司，就叫ABC吧)的作品，除了“金髮碧眼”的大舉入侵，(這話是在後面有更多的著墨)外，更重要的是設計的品質與成果，說句實在話，三門怎麼敢把這樣的設計拿出來啊~而且還放在ABC及KPF的作品中間，那個成果實在落差太大了吧…(走筆至此~突然想到，會不會是建築師公會裡有人要整三門啊…當然這是不可能證實的題外話啦~)，不過真正的重點不是要“取笑”三門，而是要發掘問題，依我想大概不脫以下三個原因：(因為寫的比較清楚…所以就看圖吧~)

 

請點選後放大閱讀…

 

總之，有點悲研吧，那麼偉大的事務所竟然拿出這樣的作品，還塔樓咧~“憤”。

 

 

三門的作品--耐斯生活廣場(請注意底下的小字：後棟則配置9公尺高的塔樓作為飯店的路標。…冏rz)

 

                             (  照片版權為建築師雜誌所有 )

 

附註…請看一下外國建築設計公司的作品吧…這樣就會知道為什麼我會有三門被玩的感覺…

 

 

  RTKL的作品--統一夢時代購物中心

 

 

 

最近忙到沒時間來更新部落格，倒是看了不少部落格，都是一些自稱專寫“廢文”的部落客寫的文章，總之，覺得自己在寫網誌這件事還是太嫩了呢。總之，先說到這，否則，部落格首頁是空白的也挺尷尬的。