無求 ...

踏遍高山復大林，不知迴首夕陽沈；

下山即是來時路，枉費夤緣一片心。

無求卑亦貴，
知足欠還盈。
由於連利慾之心亦一無所有，
一切都是順乎所生，
隨天所養，
根本沒有不足之可言。
所以自然而然，
已居於福份的前列。

…… 造物無私，
如果你能相信得過，
就會給你一個很好的安排。
費盡心思求取，
以至多用手段，
只不過多餘之舉而已。
　　

The Bagels Test

Honest workers or thieves? A bagel-seller: Mr. Paul Feldman who trusted customers to pay made surprising discoveries about dishonesty.

He’s a former defense analyst who decided to go into the bagel business. He got the idea after years of providing his co-workers with bagels - see he would go off in the morning, bring bagels and cream cheese into the office and then leave a cash basket for people to pay him back voluntarily. In 1984, his research institute fell under new management and Paul decided to leave. He then started a new business delivering bagels to offices and instituting the same honor system - this was a great business plan and he was delivering 8,400 bagels a week to 140 different offices. Being an economist and all he kept detailed statistics regarding payment rates and how those differed amongst different types of companies.

Despite all the attention paid to rogue companies such as Enron, academics know very little about the practicalities of white-collar crime. There are no good data. A key fact of white-collar crime is that we hear about only the very slim fraction of people who are caught cheating. Most embezzlers lead quiet and theoretically happy lives; employees who steal company property are rarely detected.

What did Feldman discover? That larger companies have lower payment rates than smaller companies, and that executives steal more than lower level employees. He also discovered that payment rates go down around holiday seasons and go up when the weather is nice. He also noted an increase in payment rates after 9/11.

Feldman has also reached his own conclusions about honesty, based more on his experience than the data. He believes morale is a big factor — that an office is more honest when employees like their boss and their work. He also believes that employees further up the corporate ladder cheat more than those below. He got this idea after delivering for years to one company spread out over three floors — an executive floor on top and two lower floors with sales, service, and administrative employees. (Feldman wondered if perhaps the executives cheated out of an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. What he didn’t consider is that perhaps cheating was how they came to be executives.)

One of the argument for the above phenomenon is that morality represents the way we would like the world to work while economics represents how it actually does work. If that’s true, then the story of Feldman’s bagel business lies at the very intersection of morality and economics. Yes, a lot of people steal from him, but the vast majority (in average around 87% of the people who took the bagel but paid for it), even though no one is watching them, do not.

This was presented in the Sunday Times and is an excerpt from Freaknomics, a book written by economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner.



　　

窗外 ...

步過大學校園，又見到杜鵑花幾次開放又凋零，路上揮別無數個黎明和黃昏，至今才忽然覺得，妳說過的那些話，我都懂了，都領會了。

是我自己的選擇，選擇無人愿意痴立的後備角落，用我執意的不變，等待那變幻成七彩、又變幻成黑暗的情懷。

并沒有什麼，這并沒有什麼。天下既是如此滄桑，何必在乎如微塵一般的人的際遇，只要心能滿足，心能有所回味，不也就讓人滿足？

是的，我已經習慣等待，別太詫異，我已習慣了。謝謝妳陪伴我，陪伴我的孤寂和等待。一個在黑暗裡度日的人兒，是不能希冀太多的 ……。

寫於一九九四年四月二日

　　

人散後 ...

去年今日此門中，人面桃花相映紅；

人面不知何處去，桃花依舊笑春風。

摘自『唐‧崔護‧題城都南莊』

崔護進京考進士，落第，就留在長安讀書準備下一次考試。清明節那天，他一個人到城南郊外遊玩，見到一個獨立莊園，屋宅很大，花木很多，可是卻寂若無人。他上前叩門，好久好久才有一名女子從門縫中向外窺視，問：「是誰呀？」

崔護報了姓名，說：「尋春獨行，酒渴求飲。」那女子給了崔護一杯水，讓他進門在院子裡坐下，自己則倚在一株桃樹旁站著等他喝完。崔護一杯水喝完了，再不捨也只好告辭，那女子送他出門時，又透露出一絲不勝之情。崔護當時心頭有些恍然若失，可是回去後就陷入書陣「拼大考」，忘了那一次的尋春偶遇。

隔了一年，清明節又到了，崔護想起去年的事情，忽然「情不可抑」，就再前往城南那座莊園，門牆依舊，卻只見大門從外頭上了鎖。於是在門扉上題了這一首詩:『去年今日此門中，人面桃花相映紅；人面不知何處去？桃花依舊笑春風。』

後人將這個故事編成《桃花緣》話本，女主角也有了名字叫「絳娘」，增添情節：絳娘以為崔護還會再來，日日思念，憂鬱成疾，而崔護隔年來訪當天，絳娘恰巧去掃墓，回來見門扉上題詩，以為痛失交臂，就此一病不起。

崔護過了幾天，不死心，再去尋訪，卻從一位老翁口中得知噩耗，前往哭靈，淚水喚回了絳娘的魂魄，死而復生，兩人結為夫妻，白首偕老。

人生聚散知何幾，
悲歡離合傷懷多；
桃紅乍開花依舊，
今年不見往時人。

寫於一九八四年三月十六日

　　

Is that simple ...?

有一個人去應徵工作，隨手將走廊上的紙屑撿起來，放進了垃圾桶，被路過的口試官看到了，因此他得到了這份工作。原來獲得賞識很簡單，養成好習慣就可以了。

有個小弟在腳踏車店當學徒，有人送來一部故障的腳踏車，小弟除了將車修好，還把車子整理的漂亮如新，其他學徒笑他多此一舉，後來雇主將腳踏車領回去的第二天，小弟被挖角到那位雇主的公司上班。原來出人頭地很簡單，吃點虧就可以了。

有個小孩對母親說：「媽媽你今天好漂亮。」母親回答：「爲什麽。」小孩說「因爲媽媽今天都沒有生氣。」原來要擁有漂亮很簡單，只要不生氣就可以了。

有個牧場主人，叫他孩子每天在牧場上辛勤的工作，朋友對他說：「你不需要讓孩子如此辛苦，農作物一樣會長得很好的。」牧場主人回答說：「我不是在培養農作物，我是在培養我的孩子。」原來培養孩子很簡單，讓他吃點苦頭就可以了。

有一個網球教練對學生說：「如果一個網球掉進草堆，應該如何找？」有人答：「從草堆中心線開始找。」有人答：「從草堆的最凹處開始找。」有人答：「從草最長 的地方開始找。」教練宣佈正確答案：「按部就班的從草地的一頭，搜尋到草地的另一 頭。」原來尋找成功的方法很簡單，從一數到十不要跳過就可以了。

有一家商店經常燈火通明，有人問：「你們店裏到底是用什麽牌子的燈管？那麽耐用。」店家回答說：「我們的燈管也常常壞，祇是我們壞了就換而已。」原來保持明亮的方法很簡單，只要常常更換就可以了。

住在田邊的青蛙對住在路邊的青蛙說：「你這裏太危險，搬來跟我住吧！」路邊的青蛙說：「我已經習慣了，懶得搬了。」幾天後，田邊的青蛙去探望路邊的青蛙，卻發現 他已被車子壓死，暴屍在馬路上。原來掌握命運的方法很簡單，遠離懶惰就可以了。

有一隻小雞破殼而出的時候，剛好有只烏龜經過，從此以後小雞就背著蛋殼過一生。 原 來脫離沈重的負荷很簡單，放棄固執成見就可以了。

有幾個小孩很想當天使，上帝給他們一人一個燭臺，叫他們要保持光亮，結果一天兩天過去了，上帝都沒來，所有小孩已不在擦拭那燭臺，有一天上帝突然造訪，每個人的燭臺都蒙上厚厚的灰塵，只有一個小孩大家都叫他笨小孩，因爲上帝沒來，他也每天都擦拭，結果這個笨小孩成了天使。原來當天使很簡單，只要實實在在去做就可以了。

有只小豬，向神請求做祂的門徒，神欣然答應，剛好有一頭小牛由泥沼裏爬出來，渾身都是泥濘，神對小豬說：「去幫他洗洗身子吧！」小豬訝異的答道：「我是神的門徒，怎麽能去侍候那髒兮兮的小牛呢！」神說：「你不去侍候別人，別人怎會知道，你是我的門徒呢！」 原來要變成神很簡單，只要真心付出就可以了。

有一支掏金隊伍在沙漠中行走，大家都步伐沈重，痛苦不堪，只有一人快樂的走著 , 別人問：「你爲何如此愜意？」他笑著：「因爲我帶的東西最少。」原來快樂很簡單, 擁有少一點就可以了。

• 原來獲得賞識很簡單，養成好習慣就可以了。
• 原來出人頭地很簡單，吃點虧就可以了。
• 原來要擁有漂亮很簡單，只要不生氣就可以了。
• 原來培養孩子很簡單，讓他吃點苦頭就可以了。
• 原來尋找成功的方法很簡單，從一數到十不要跳過就可以了。
• 原來保持明亮的方法很簡單，只要常常更換就可以了。
• 原來掌握命運的方法很簡單，遠離懶惰就可以了。
• 原來脫離沈重的負荷很簡單，放棄固執成見就可以了。
• 原來當天使很簡單，只要實實在在去做就可以了。
• 原來要變成神很簡單，只要真心付出就可以了。
• 原來快樂很簡單 , 擁有少一點就可以了。

人生的光彩在哪裡？

早上醒來，光彩在臉上，充滿笑容的迎接未來。
到了中午，光彩在腰上，挺直腰桿的活在當下。
到了晚上，光彩在腳上，腳踏實地的做好自己。

原來人生也可以很簡單，只要能懂得「珍惜、知足、感恩」就擁有了生命的光彩。

　　

贈別

多情卻似總無情，
唯覺樽前笑不成；

蠟燭有心還惜別，
替人垂淚到天明。

摘自『杜牧‧贈別』

這一首抒寫詩人對妙齡歌女留戀惜別的心情。

杜牧此詩不用『悲』、『愁』等字，卻寫得坦率、真摯，道出了離別時的真情實感。同所愛不忍分別，又不得不分別，感情是千頭萬緒的。 離別的悲苦，以『笑』不成入手，強顏歡笑，使所愛歡欣！但因為感傷離別，卻擠不出一絲笑容來。想笑是由於『多情』，『笑不成』是由於太多情，不忍離別而事與願違。『蠟燭』本是有燭芯的，幻變成了『惜別』之心，它那徹夜流溢的燭淚，就是為了離別而傷心了。

還可以說的，就只有：

寄塵玄女垂青意，俗世流郎慟愧心；
無行浪子堪良配，另覓蕎木託此生。

寫於一九八九年一月三十日

　　

Moral Development

This was a system learn from a Jesuit cloisterer when in High School. The system tries to explain human moral development and on how people judge their behaviors. This also describes the formation of a system of values on which to base decisions concerning "right" and "wrong, " or "good" and "bad." Those values are underlying assumptions about standards that govern moral decisions.

I would like to call this: Five Stages of Moral Development on Behavior Basis.

Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation (may be up to age 9)

• In this stage, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished.

• The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

Stage 2: Interpersonal accord and Appreciation orientation (normally age 9+ to adolescence)

• In this stage, individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people. They try to be a good boy or good girl having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. In this stage, the reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships.

Stage 3: Authority and social-order maintaining orientation ( could be adulthood)

• People in this stage think it is important to obey the laws and social conventions because of its importance to maintaining a working society. Moral reasoning in this stage is thus beyond the need for approval exhibited in stage two, because the individual understands that society needs to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.

Stage 4: Ethics and Social contract orientation

• In this stage, persons have certain principles to which they may attach more value than laws, such as human rights or social justice. In this reasoning, actions are wrong if they violate these ethical principles. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than dictums, and must be changed when necessary (provided there is agreement). By this reasoning, laws that do not promote general social welfare should be changed. Democratic governments are ostensibly based on this Stage reasoning.

Stage 5: Animal Nature and Principled conscience

• It appears that people rarely if ever reach this stage. At this stage, their behaviors no longer depend on rules or ethics. Instead they judge their behaviors by themselves. They take up the responsibility of the result of their judgment. They follow rules and ethics most of the time but in the sense that they know clearly the reasons behind the rules and not following regulations or ethical standard blindly. Their standard of behavior is not the standard created by rules or ethics. The moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. One way to do this is by imagining oneself in everyone else's shoes, imagining what they would decide if they were doing the same.

One thing is important, the above development although with some age suggestion, it doesn’t mean that the development is necessary related to age. Many people remain in the stage depending on their experiences, their mind set and sometimes education. I would say many college students in Hong Kong even hang about in stage one or two.

To what were noticed, most of the Chinese people remain in the third stage and are not able to go any further. Undeniably, this is an easy way of life. No need to think about what is right or wrong. Just following the rules from the law, the directive from Bible or moral standards set by ancestors. That leads to no matter how ridiculous the law seems to be, still many people will support it without any doubt. This kind of life also does not need to be responsible to most of the decisions made because the line of right or wrong was pre-determined. So they could act and judge people more easily and normally without compassion.

To illustrate one's moral development, there is an interesting experiment named: Heinz dilemma. This experiment was created by Lawrence Kohlberg who tried to explain the development of moral reasoning. A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe. Created while studying psychology at the University of Chicago, the theory was inspired by the work of Jean Piaget and a fascination with children's reactions to moral dilemmas.
　　

塵世語

人世間的事誰也無法掌握：

該執著的就永不怨悔；

該捨去的就不再牽掛；

該珍惜的就去好好把握。

摘自『松林書纖‧塵世語』

Tranquility Path I
by Pierre-Auguste Renoir
　　

Self-Actualizers

According to Abraham Harold Maslow, charateristics of self-actualizers are as below:

These people were reality-centered, which means they could differentiate what is fake and dishonest from what is real and genuine. They were problem-centered, meaning they treated life's difficulties as problems demanding solutions, not as personal troubles to be railed at or surrendered to. And they had a different perception of means and ends. They felt that the ends don't necessarily justify the means, that the means could be ends themselves, and that the means - the journey - was often more important than the ends.

The self-actualizers also had a different way of relating to others. First, they enjoyed solitude, and were comfortable being alone. And they enjoyed deeper personal relations with a few close friends and family members, rather than more shallow relationships with many people. They enjoyed autonomy, a relative independence from physical and social needs. And they resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure to be "well adjusted" or to "fit in" - they were, in fact, nonconformists in the best sense.

They had an unhostile sense of humor -- preferring to joke at their own expense, or at the human condition, and never directing their humor at others. They had a quality he called acceptance of self and others, by which he meant that these people would be more likely to take you as you are than try to change you into what they thought you should be.

This same acceptance applied to their attitudes towards themselves: If some quality of theirs wasn't harmful, they let it be, even enjoying it as a personal quirk. On the other hand, they were often strongly motivated to change negative qualities in themselves that could be changed. Along with this comes spontaneity and simplicity: They preferred being themselves rather than being pretentious or artificial. In fact, for all their nonconformity, he found that they tended to be conventional on the surface, just where less self-actualizing nonconformists tend to be the most dramatic.

Further, they had a sense of humility and respect towards others - something Maslow also called democratic values - meaning that they were open to ethnic and individual variety, even treasuring it. They had a quality Maslow called human kinship or Gemeinschaftsgefühl - social interest, compassion, humanity. And this was accompanied by a strong ethics, which was spiritual but seldom conventionally religious in nature. And these people had a certain freshness of appreciation, an ability to see things, even ordinary things, with wonder. Along with this comes their ability to be creative, inventive, and original.
 

And, finally, these people tended to have more peak experiences than the average person. A peak experience is one that takes you out of yourself, that makes you feel very tiny, or very large, to some extent one with life or nature or God. It gives you a feeling of being a part of the infinite and the eternal. These experiences tend to leave their mark on a person, change them for the better, and many people actively seek them out. They are also called mystical experiences, and are an important part of many religious and philosophical traditions.

Maslow doesn't think that self-actualizers are perfect, of course. There were several flaws or imperfections he discovered along the way as well: First, they often suffered considerable anxiety and guilt - but realistic anxiety and guilt, rather than misplaced or neurotic versions. Some of them were absentminded and overly kind. And finally, some of them had unexpected moments of ruthlessness, surgical coldness, and loss of humor.

Two other points he makes about these self-actualizers: Their values were "natural" and seemed to flow effortlessly from their personalities. And they appeared to transcend many of the dichotomies others accept as being undeniable, such as the differences between the spiritual and the physical, the selfish and the unselfish, and the masculine and the feminine.

Metaneeds and metapathologies

Another way in which Maslow approach the problem of what is self-actualization is to talk about the special, driving needs (B-needs, of course) of the self-actualizers. They need the following in their lives in order to be happy:

• Truth, rather than dishonesty.
• Goodness, rather than evil.
• Beauty, not ugliness or vulgarity.
• Unity, wholeness, and transcendence of opposites, not arbitrariness or forced choices.
• Aliveness, not deadness or the mechanization of life.
• Uniqueness, not bland uniformity.
• Perfection and necessity, not sloppiness, inconsistency, or accident.
• Completion, rather than incompleteness.
• Justice and order, not injustice and lawlessness.
• Simplicity, not unnecessary complexity.
• Richness, not environmental impoverishment.
• Effortlessness, not strain.
• Playfulness, not grim, humorless, drudgery.
• Self-sufficiency, not dependency.
• Meaningfulness, rather than senselessness.

At first glance, you might think that everyone obviously needs these. But think: If you are living through an economic depression or a war, or are living in a ghetto or in rural poverty, do you worry about these issues, or do you worry about getting enough to eat and a roof over your head? In fact, Maslow believes that much of the what is wrong with the world comes down to the fact that very few people really are interested in these values -- not because they are bad people, but because they haven’t even had their basic needs taken care of!

When a self-actualizer doesn't get these needs fulfilled, they respond with metapathologies -- a list of problems as long as the list of metaneeds! Let me summarize it by saying that, when forced to live without these values, the self-actualizer develops depression, despair, disgust, alienation, and a degree of cynicism.

Maslow began by picking out a group of people, some historical figures, some people he knew, whom he felt clearly met the standard of self-actualization. Included in this august group were Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Adams, William James, Albert Schweitzer, Benedict Spinoza, and Alduous Huxley, plus 12 unnamed people who were alive at the time Maslow did his research. He then looked at their biographies, writings, the acts and words of those he knew personally, and so on. From these sources, he developed a list of qualities that seemed characteristic of these people, as opposed to the great mass of us.