宗教

Mariapolis 2010 瑪利亞之城

5 Comments

每年夏天我也會去教會的退修活動﹐過去我一直參加加西生活營﹐前前後後去了也差不多十年。不過加西營是給青年人的活動﹐近幾年我入營已覺得自己有代溝﹐特別是結婚後更加有隔漠﹐與還在讀中學大學的小朋友沒有什麼共同話題可以分享。於是今年老婆經朋友介紹下﹐帶我參加普世博愛運動(Focolare Movement)舉辨的瑪利亞之城(Mariapolis)﹐這是個以一家大細為主的避靜。參加者是加拿大主流教友﹐不再是華人教會的小圈子﹐不過我平時也是返英文教堂﹐所以也沒有特別的不習慣。

可能是我弧陋寡聞﹐以前從沒有聽過Focolare這個團體。入營後聽過簡介資料﹐才知在天主教內﹐這個組織的影響力﹐足以和Opus Dei分庭抗儷﹐在全球百多個地方有分會﹐成員人數超過十萬。Focolare的名字在意大利文中解作火爐﹐是1943年由Chiara Lubich女仕創立。她感應很特別的聖召﹐開僻結婚生仔﹐守獨身﹐出家做神父修女以外﹐第四條事奉主的道路。獨身成員群居生活共享財產﹐很字面地過早期教會的生活。與入修院出家過修道的生活不同﹐Focolare主張成員入世有正常職業﹐以身作則用生活見證去傳教。家庭成員是組織的第二線﹐與群居獨身成員互相關懷扶持﹐最重要是家庭成員培養組織的下一代﹐讓他們從小在Focolare的價值中成長﹐將來選擇成為家庭成員或獨身群居成員﹐把組織薪火相傳延續下去。為平衡天主教以男性為主的神職體系﹐Focolare主張教會女性的一面﹐以聖母瑪莉亞為榜樣﹐宣揚以愛去普世合一﹐與其他宗教對話交流﹐並強調為主受苦的意義。教宗更頒命Focolare的主席一職﹐永遠只能由女性擔任﹐以保持組織女性化的獨質。獨身群居其實也不是新鮮事物﹐我國早已有姑婆屋的傳統。想不到Chiara四個金蘭姊妹﹐當年在意大利鄉下的姑婆屋﹐竟然可以發展為跨國的姑婆組織﹐還發明男姑婆屋給男性獨身成員居住。

在入營前老婆在網上看過些Focolare的資料﹐有些網頁說這個組織是Cult﹐利用高壓洗腦方式傳教招攬成 。群居成員要共享財產﹐也有騙財或共產主義之嫌。這個營在Trinity Western University舉行﹐大學趁學生放暑假﹐把宿舍和演講廳出租給不同團體搞活動賺外快﹐退修營在正當地方舉辨讓我們放心不少。營友有不同族裔背景﹐來自不同溫哥華的天主教會﹐也有些人從阿省﹐沙省或西雅圖專程過來﹐全部人都很友善很正常。他們大慨比一般主流天主教徒熱情﹐但不至於去到華人小教堂基督教徒的地步。營友一家大細來參加的居多﹐也有些是未結婚還未生仔的Focolare第二代。像我們白撞去參加的人很少﹐因為Mariapolis從不在教會宣傳﹐只靠朋友間的口碑一個傳一個。加拿大西岸的姑婆屋有四個姑婆﹐兩個教師一個社工一個做醫院﹐看上去不似嫁不出才要做姑婆﹐不說出來還以為是普通的中女熟女剩女。可能她們真的有做修女以外的特別聖召﹐才參加Focolare發誓獨身事奉主。

退修營的活動是很例牌﹐每天有彌撒﹐有講員講聖經金句﹐有上台見證式分享也有一般小組分享﹐報告交流其他各地Focolare的近況﹐當然還有些無聊的康樂活動。唯一有些不同的地方﹐是有幾個環節播創辨人的DVD。她看起來是個慈祥的白髮老婆婆﹐不過聽她講話又不覺得她特別有領袖魅力﹐演講內容太多為空洞的教會常用述語。說起來這類講話在天主教比較少聽到﹐但在基督教時聽到我也懂說。但我見有些營友竟然在抄筆記﹐情況有點與基督教的相似。另外可能因為是家庭營的關係﹐節目很鬆動有很多空閒時間。最有趣是最後一晚有小朋友才藝表演﹐不同年齡組別的小朋友唱歌跳舞娛樂大家。

基本上除了最後的小朋友表演外﹐每個可以坐下來的環節我都在打盹。領袖講話時睡得特別甜﹐可能是意大利原文voice over英文配音很有催眠效果之故。營內沒有上網沒有電視﹐我每天都早睡早起﹐竟然白天還可以不停打瞌睡﹐好像患上了渴睡症一樣。入營前我在不停趕公司project﹐又飛去印度又飛落美國﹐每天早晨和晚上也要開會﹐連續兩個月過著香港式的打工生活﹐實在令人吃不消。耶穌在聖經說過﹕「凡勞苦和負重擔的，你們都到我跟前來，我要使你們安息。」 這個退修營讓我可以切斷網絡﹐於下一切好好地休息。老婆也知道那些演講不是我那杯茶﹐她很體貼地沒有叫醒我強迫我聽﹐只是在我發出太大聲浪時拍我不要影響別人。我對那些膚淺的演講內容沒有興趣﹐倒好奇跨國姑婆組織的發蹟史和神學根據。幾天下來我在演講中場休息時間﹐打書釘讀完Chiara的自傳訪問。我對Focolare在理論上的認識﹐分分鐘比那些聽演講很努力抄筆記的人還多。

退修營撞正世界杯﹐幸好在大學飯堂有電視直播﹐我才不至錯失荷蘭對西班牙的冠軍戰。避修營的節目編排完全沒有考慮球迷的需要﹐星期天的彌撒與世界杯同時開場。彌撒每個星期也可以看﹐世界杯四年才一次﹐我會選擇看那個十分明顯。打到下半場彌撒散場﹐電視機前也開始越來越多人。西班牙是天主教國家﹐營友中不少人有西球牙血統﹐西班牙在加時入球﹐歡呼聲響遍整個飯堂﹐氣氛與在酒吧看不遑多讓﹐只差在沒有啤酒。

從這五天四夜的經驗來看﹐Focolare應該是正當組織﹐網上那些指控不實。看一個組織是否有邪教傾向﹐看他們如何教育小朋友最清楚。營內的小朋友看起來都是好孩子﹐年紀小的是好是壞還不清楚﹐但我和幾個年紀大點的小朋友傾談﹐他們是在Focolara長大的第二代﹐全部都能升讀到大學﹐讀醫生工程教師等等。他們不讀那些以賺錢為上的學科﹐而讀以幫助人別為目的學科。那些學科雖不能賺大錢﹐好歹那些也是專業學科﹐足夠保障生活安定衣食無憂。隨著中女剩女人口漸多﹐姑婆屋也漸為人所接受。Focolare很強調要入世傳福音﹐不要標奇立異劃聖潔高地固步自封﹐不理神學根據這些沒有答案的問題﹐他們在世俗人眼中完全是正常人﹐換一句話說邪教之說便不攻自破了。不過短期內我不想再去Mariapolis﹐因為退修營實在太沉悶。將來我有小朋友﹐我應該會帶他們來參加。一來讓小朋友多認識耶穌是好事﹐二來至少在那裏結交壞朋友的機會少些。

電影

葉問2

2 Comments

去年《葉問》捧紅了全宇宙最好打的甄子丹﹐第一集票房豐收很自然開拍續集。這次《葉問2》還是以打戲為主﹐還加碼加入另一好打之人洪金寶﹐上演一齣雙龍會。上集講八年抗戰打日本仔﹐今集地點移師戰後香港﹐便順理成章打鬼佬。老實說我對《葉問2》的故事內容不太關心﹐總之大致通順便滿意收貨﹐反正看這齣電影也不會是為了看戲情。

今集比上集有更多的打鬥場面﹐雖然有每場也帶有上一集的影子。一開始葉問收徒那場對打很搞笑﹐葉問與上來找渣的黃曉明過招手下留情﹐不明裏就的黃曉明卻反明葉問不痛不癢在幹什麼﹐葉問於是出手重拳黃曉明馬上被打到流鼻血。其後伙同友人再上來報仇﹐給葉問一個打三輕易地解決了。黃曉明給洪拳第子在街上單挑那場也打得不錯﹐一招一式有板有眼。葉問魚檔救徒弟那場有上集紗廠大戰的影子。可惜電影在葉明的師徒關係著墨不多﹐黃曉明沒有什麼發揮空間。不過如果故事加插太多文戲﹐拖慢武打場面的節奏又不好看了﹐真是有點自相矛盾。

茶樓大戰是中段高潮﹐圓桌之戰很有打機過關﹐敵人往後越打越強的感覺。不過葉問和洪金寶交手那場﹐劇情需要雙方要不分高下太過造作﹐反而沒有前兩場比試好看。後來葉問和洪金寶在武館過招﹐雖然洪金寶的兒子亂入只交了幾手﹐因為動作設計不用顧輸贏面子﹐打得比圓桌之戰好看。電影後段的兩場重頭戲分別是洪金寶打鬼佬和葉問打鬼佬。第一場打鬼佬可以說是為第二場舖路。上集最終之戰日本仔將軍不知從那兒彈出來﹐又給葉問二三下手勢打死了﹐觀眾不覺得敵人特別好打﹐最終之戰自然也少了張力。不及這集有時間舖排鬼佬拳王的層次感﹐葉問先與洪金寶打成平手﹐鬼佬又把洪金寶打死﹐營做出葉問強敵當前的緊張氣氛。加上觀眾熟悉西式拳法﹐鬼佬拳王以力量對撼葉問的巧手功夫﹐出招有根有據動作場面便有說服力得多。

上集葉問打敗金山找﹐說出了南北武術門派無分高下﹐分高下的是使出武術的人﹐天下間沒有最強的武功只有最強的人的道理。今集葉問又推翻了上集的道理﹐說出了人總會老去功夫總會生疏﹐天下間沒有最強的人的道理。洪金寶被拳王打死﹐並不是他功夫技不如人﹐而是他年紀大身體差﹐沒有氣力打持久戰。遺憾是葉問說這道理的情景有點生硬造作﹐沒上文下理地對徒弟隨口說出來。今集葉問另一個道理﹐陪家人吃飯重要還是勝負重要﹐同樣有點嬌柔造作的假惺惺的味道﹐對於故事的連貫性可有可無。

其實這類功夫片﹐從以前的精武門﹐到早幾年的霍元甲﹐到現在的葉問﹐來來去去也是同一公式。動作場面局限在擂台比武﹐才可以讓主角一對一大展身手﹐反而以一敵百的無雙場面﹐只是能在中場作點綴。早幾年盔甲片大行其道﹐濫拍太多觀眾看膩了﹐若果葉問不在功夫片的公式上變出新花樣﹐恐怕功夫片的熱潮不會持久。上集打日本仔今集打鬼佬﹐恐怕下集葉問找對手﹐不是打拉登便要打外星人了。

News Clips

How to Make an American Job Before It’s Too Late – Andy Grove

1 Comment

Offshore levy sounds like an economical suicide. Protectionism is never the solution. I do agree Andy Grove’s opinion about off source is long term problem as we are losing our technical expertise. My solution is two folds. On technology front, we have to move even even higher tech, use robots and automation to keep the cost advantage. On the political front, we have to change the unfair competition advantage in overseas countries even by overthrowing their government.

Continue reading How to Make an American Job Before It’s Too Late – Andy Grove →

哲學

哲學功課: Does natural selection explain why you and I have opposable thumbs?

4 Comments

進化論的其中一個很多爭議的問題﹐是達爾文提出物競天擇適者生者這個大自然定律﹐不能解釋物種如何進化出某些基因特質。例如生物學家用進化論﹐如何能推論出人類的姆指是從何進化而來呢。哲學家Sober提出一種說法﹐認為進化論根本不能解釋物種如何進化出某些基因特質。進化論應該要反過來解讀﹐去解釋沒有某些基因特質的其他物種為什麼絕種。物種從基因突變產生新的基因特質﹐大自然定律淘汰了不適合生存的基因﹐剩下來的基因便是能夠存活並繁殖後代。另一哲學家Neander則提出相反說法﹐說因為基因轉變有累積性﹐進化論可以解釋物種基因特質的變化。其實這個爭議有點無聊﹐在我看來不過是雙方在咬文嚼字﹐大家對進化論中因果關係的定義沒有共識﹐才會有這個有點牛頭不對馬嘴的辯論。

Does natural selection explain why you and I have opposable thumbs?

In the debate between negative and positive natural selection, Sober argues that natural selection does not contribute to the existence of individual traits within the population. Neander argues that the cumulative natural selection process shapes the genetic properties of the population. Nanay backs up Neander’s claim and argues both arguments do not take limitation of environment resources in the account. In this essay, I will further enhance Nanya’s argument by stressing how direct competition over resource among individuals with different traits can be affected the process natural selection. I will present an argument that cumulative selection process could decisively alter the genetic trait of the population in the presence of direct competition; thus explain the why you and I have opposable thumbs.

In [1], Neander summarize Sober’s argument for the negative view of natural selection. Sober argue that natural selection cannot explain why you and I have opposable thumbs, natural selection can only explain why all our distance cousins without opposable thumbs are eliminated by natural selection. The negative view states that natural selection cannot create new traits; it can only destroy traits that are not fit for survival. The traits of individual either come from inheritance or random mutation. Natural selection did not create the tree of life: it just determines which branches were removed and which remained. [1, p68]. Sober illustrate the negative view of natural selection using an example of a class of third grade students who can read and write at the level of third grade. Every student in the third grade class can read and write at the third grade level because that is exactly the selection criteria of the class. No student who cannot read or write at third grade level is selected into the class in the first place. Therefore, merely the fact that the student is in the third grade class does not explain how each student acquires his reading and writing skill.

In [4], Walsh makes a distinction between two types of explanations national selection, the wide scope and narrow scope. The wide scope explanation explains the frequency of traits within a population is biased by cumulative selection. The narrow scope explanation explains why a given individual possesses a particular trait. Walsh agrees with Neander that natural selection is two-stage process by taking into account of the reproduction factor. In the first stage, the new traits from random mutation are selected to pass down to the offspring. The second stage then has a biased population base to start the next iteration of reproduction. Traits that affect reproductive success will cumulatively alter the population make up in the long run. Walsh argues that the two-stage process only address the wide scope explanation by answering how a trait type is arise within a population from the selection advantage of that trait, but it does not answer the narrow scope question that explains how the trait token occurs in each individual of the population.

In [5], Nanay tries to address the narrow scope question by bringing in another factor into the equation, namely the limitation of resource in the environment. Nanay argues if individuals with different traits are compete for the same environment resources and the total population the environment can support has a limit, then elimination of individuals of one trait alter the chances of survival of other individuals with a different trait. The trait is more fit to survive in the competition of scare resource will have a selection advantage. In short, the distribution of different traits within the population is a zero sum game. The adaptation of one trait is in the expense of another mutually exclusive trait that is inferior in term of survival fitness. The elimination of the later trait is the other side of the same coin of the survival of the former trait. Nanay provides an indirect explanation to the narrow scope question by making the claim that individual with a certain trait exists because its parent with the same trait survive and reach reproductive age thanks to other individual with a different trait in the previous generation failed to survive and reproduce.

In this long debate started by Sober and Neander, we can observe a trend that is going on. The negative view camp first posed a question that cannot be answered by natural selection. The positive view camp counter attack by introducing new parameters into the equation of natural selection and claim there is a causal relationship between the survived trait is the selected trait. For example, Neander introduces the reproduction factor and Nanay introduces the limitation of environmental resources. The negative view camp defense by narrowing the definition of the natural selection question and focus on how the the inheritance linage of an individual occurs. I am not satisfy with Nanay’s indirect explanation because there are still rooms for the negative view camp to further narrow down the natural selection question and dodge the bullet. The elimination of trait B does not necessarily imply the inheritance of trait A, given that there are numerous other traits out there that are also completing for survival. I would like to introduce a parameter into the natural selection equation and seal the escape route of the negative camp once for all. The new parameter I would like to introduce is direct competition of reproduction of individual with different traits within the population. Nanay argues that indirect competition of scared resource in environment for survival and reproduction can indirectly explain why how a particular trait arises in an individual. Then the trait contributes to the direct competition of reproduction and survival can directly explain how a particular trait arises in an individual. Let me illustrate what direct competition is with a real world example, the moose horn. Male moose fight using their horn for the right to mate with female moose. Suppose in one generation, there is a random mutation of the moose horn genes and create two different genetic traits. Trait A is the normal horn gene that grows horn with regular strength. Trait B is the super horn gene that grows much stronger horn. The individual with super horn gene will win the fight and able to mate and reproduce offspring. Those offspring with super horn gene will further displace the normal horn gene in the next generation. By applying mathematical models, given that the survival fitness of individuals with the super horn gene is equal to individuals with normal horn gene in all other aspect, the super horn gene will spread over the entire population following the equation geometric series. In the case of direct competition in reproduction, we can answer the narrow scope question decisively. Individual trait token is inherited because the trait token has a reproduction advantage in the population. The other trait token lose the reproduction completion to this trait token in the previous generation. Instead of explaining the natural selection in terms of how the survival of the fitness affect probability distribution of trait token in the population, my explanation explains the inherence linage of individual traits in a winner takes all survival games.

Let me illustrate my explanation further by going back to Sober’s classic analogy of a third grade class. In Nanay indirect explanation, there are limited seats in the third grade class, only students who passed the second grade can be promoted to the third grade. The twist is the mark scheme of the exam uses bell curve to determine who pass and who fail. Those at the bottom of the class that failed the second grade exam are equivalent to those individuals with traits do not survive to reproductive age. It is arguable that the indirect explanation still does not explain how each student in the third grade class acquires their third grade reading and writing ability, rather it is the third grade reading and writing standard is adjusted to meet the ability of last student who barely survive the exam cut off threshold. In my direct competition explanation, it is not a typical third grade class. It is a third grade class in a ninja assassin school. The ninja assassin school does not teach reading or writing, rather it teaches killing and self-defense. The second grade exam is not a pencil and paper test, it is literally a fight for survival. The second grade students are put inside a huge boxing ring and asked to have round robin fights using their best killing or self-defense skill. Those who remain standing at the end of the exam period got promoted to the third grade. It is irrelevant how the students acquire their killing or self-defense skill prior to the exam, because only killing or self-defense skill matter in the selection process.

In my conclusion remarks, I am drawing the significant of opposable thumbs in the direct competition of reproduction and survival. It is evident that without opposable thumbs, human cannot use tools and more important weapons. Imagine there are two tribes of pre-historical human; one tribe developed an opposable thumb while the other did not. For the first few millenniums before human invent stone tools and weapons, the opposable thumb did not give the former tribe neither survival advantage nor disadvantage. The two tribes populate the environment and multiply with roughly the same rate. Yet the balance of power is tipped once the tribe with opposable thumb developed tools and weapons. With the help of tools and weapons, the former tribe is able to genocide the later tribe when they are fighting for the control of the land. Having the opposable thumb and the ability to use weapon is a decisive winning factor in pre-historical warfare. Since the ancestors of our non-existed distant cousin without opposable thumbs are killed by our ancestors who have opposable thumbs, natural selection explains why you and I have opposable thumbs. Survival of the fitness does not only explain the survival of a particular genetic trait in relationship to the environment, it also explains the survival of a particular genetic trait in relationship to other traits. Natural selection is not a marathon that let all the traits develops on its own and then figure out which trait pass the finishing line first. Natural selection is like the Stanley cup play off, it makes different traits play head to head against each other and let the fittest traits be the winner.

References:
1 . Neander (1995) “Pruning the Tree of Life” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 46, pp. 59-80.
2 . Sober (1995) “Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander”, BJPS. Vol. 46, pp.384-397.
3 . Neander (1995) “Explaining Complex Adaptations: A Reply to Sober’s ‘Reply to Neander’”, BJPS. Vol. 46, pp. 583-87.
4 . Walsh (1998) “The Scope of Selection: Sober and Neander on What Natural Selection Explains” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 76 (2) pp. 250-64.
5 . Nanay (2005) “Does Cumulative Selection Explain Adaptation?” Philosophy of Science, Vol 72, pp. 1099–1112.