Wednesday, May 10, 2017

書寫策略

1, 活到六十才開始用策略兩字

2. 顯然太遲

3. 這說明

4. 我心中原本無策略

5. 或原本是不喜策略的

6. 早上我是這麼說的

7. 金庸說最高的武功是

8. 無招勝有招

9. 言下之意

10.不須策略招式

11.策略兩字

12.源自宮本武藏和李登輝

13.前者一生浪跡搏命

14.以策略家著稱

15.因為他必贏不可

16.但巌流島後那最後一搏

17.砍了其徒頂上毒蛇

18.救了其徒一命

19.甘被其徒砍成白癡

20.這是武藏某一版本

21.但我喜歡這個版本

22.意思是說

23.策略一生

24.終於不要策略

25.李登輝的事

26.算了不要說了

27.但書寫不是權謀也不是決鬥

28.書寫到底需不需要策略

29.如果是有目的的書寫

30.則顯然需要

31.所以要棄之的不是別的

32.正是目的二字

33.但既然已棄目的

34.策略當然亦應棄之

35.貝克特嘗言

36.喬艾斯以多取勝

37.他遂欲極簡

38.以至極簡之極簡

39.貝克特說這是註定要失敗的

為什麼台灣沒有

殭屍和喪屍這是一個有趣的建國大業問題九叔說過人死了一口怨氣憋在那裡就會變成殭屍我們在台灣不缺怨氣為什麼沒有人過世後變成殭屍至於喪屍屬尖端生物科技病毒學對未來世界的想像我們沒有尖端生物科技病毒學也沒有對未來世界的想像沒有喪屍就比較好理解香港人和韓國人都以為他們已經有喪屍其實那是化妝的我們不用擔心日本是確定有喪屍的下次你去日本就知道

早上我跟Olga說兩件事和看到兩隻蝴蝶

兩件事一是self和subject有甚麼差別一是書寫策略說了五十分鐘到底說了些甚麼已經記不得了以後想到了再說至於兩隻蝴蝶是真的有兩隻蝴蝶在我們說兩件事的時候飛來飛去最後我有說蝴蝶做蝴蝶該做的事貓做貓該做的事人自然做人該做的事問題出在最後這句話的自然兩字

今天台灣流行

吃素後社區復健治療或社區復健治療後吃素或邊吃素邊社區復健治療以上不管吃素還是社區復健治療都跟信仰和精神醫學無關與當代台灣文學之修辭學或台灣政治學之最高境界之謊言學有關

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

this is the only evidence-based taiwan ghost story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtbEaY_A7A

this is not a HK ghost story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OHyLl6wdew

Dory Previn (1925-2012) - Stone for Bessie Smith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZO2TXHTEo

Good Old Days ' Chill Jazz & Hip Hop '

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6joqE2nJnw

Bessie Smith (1894-1937)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7TwTTifuC8

Roger Waters - Déjà Vu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7kMaurLZk

新家法 (1999)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6MrouMH1KM

Monday, May 8, 2017

羅宋湯真的很好喝

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEBmwKwIlHE

a memorable HK story, of a few thirtysomething homeless ghosts, and two borschts

1975-4-29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYmpFVDpTbw

1945

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5a4vPNHTMM

深水埗

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zqHLKzhTzI

西路軍

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-E62z91Rys

阎红彦

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZX6cUHWoiQ

其命格有三種可能一是melancholy二是anger三是anger後melancholy這第三種可能我們遂稱之為氣到沒氣了的無語問蒼天的終於平淡通常幾百年後事後的看法是落到這步田地才是最好的歷史學家其書寫也有三種可能一是恐懼二是落淚三是邊恐懼邊落淚這第三種可能我們遂稱之為the historian's thrill這個thrill是迫他暗夜無眠書寫的原因根據以上複雜辯證的描述我們可以知道為什麼台灣沒有歷史學家雖然我們不缺melancholy或anger或恐懼或落淚這種去脈絡的廉價情緒楊繼繩先生寫墓碑和天地翻覆的過程應似上述複雜辯證的描述雖然平淡兩字似乎還做不到因為我們都還不在幾百年後的事後

Sunday, May 7, 2017

老港正傳 (2007)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzXAEfXMtPM&t=253s

simply the best HK movie i've encountered in recent years, very good, very touching, filmed in 2007, which is exactly the point, before it started to turn sour

和末日派對 (2013)應一起看
https://kellychang2713.blogspot.tw/2017/05/2013.html

所以這個故事叫做從老港正傳到末日派對

跟住去邊度

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgzdSw3kpbM

Darkness at Noon (German: Sonnenfinsternis) (Arthur Koestler 1940) (1905-1983)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_at_Noon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler

Last Train to Nowhere: The Restless Spirit of Arthur Koestler

Koestler, Arthur, New Statesman (1996) (questia)

This profile of Arthur Koestler appeared in the New Statesman in July 1954. Like all profiles in the magazine from this period, it was unsigned. Koestler was an occasional contributor to the NS in the late 193os and early 194os, under Kingsley Martin's editorship. Koestler's masterpiece, the novel "Darkness at Noon", was reviewed for the NS in January 1941 by George Orwell, who read it as an "interpretation" of the Stalinist show trials of the late Thirties "by someone with an inner knowledge of totalitarian methods".

When Hardwick built the great arch which leads to Euston Station, he named it the Gateway to the North". On every great Continental railway station should have been inscribed: "The Gateway to Utopia". Did not Robert Owen describe his co-operative system as "the railway which would take men to universal happiness"? The metaphor had point: until Iron Curtains descended, railways offered men escape--from one country, one way of life, to another. And of Hungary, above all, was this true. Paris and Western civilisation were at one end of the line; Constantinople and the Orient at the other. Budapest was a gloried gypsy-encampment; Hungarians never forgot their nomadic origin. Intellectual life in Budapest was intense but detached from its surroundings. Hungarian intellectuals had to be European or nothing; and they took advantage of their railway. Budapest provided Europe with musicians, film stars, playwrights, economists--all travellers by train.

Arthur Koestler is the most complete example of this destiny. He describes his autobiography - the second volume of which has just been published - as the typical case-history of a member of the Central European educated middle classes, born in the first years of our century. He is the man without roots, the man whose mind is his only fortune, the man who is always in search of perfection. By the middle of the century, he has become the man who knows that perfection can never be found and so concludes that nothing can be found. Here, too, the disillusioned intellectual is typical of his age. We should perhaps quarrel with one word of the description. His case-history is "typical" only in being extreme. Koesder has gone further than others in quest of Utopia and has been correspondingly more disillusioned. Most men have few roots; Koestler is untypical in that he has none at all. And of course the claim to be typical reveals a false modesty quite out of tune. His transcendent abilities make him far from typical. Many men have had Koestler's experiences, or some of them. No one else could have transformed them into perhaps the most remarkable autobiography since the Confessions of Rousseau. Whether we admire or dislike him, learn from him or repudiate his instruction, there is no denying his literary gifts. Koestler is typical only in the way that Bernard Shaw claimed to be normal.

And yet, it we can tear ourselves away from Koestler's magic and look again at the record, we may wonder if his case-history is so representative after all. No doubt many intellectuals ran after Utopias between the wars; and no doubt all were somewhat disappointed. But did any run as hard as Koestler or end up in such complete disillusionment? Indeed, how many ran at all seriously? "Parlour Bolshevism" was the most popular game of the Thirties; Koestler never played it. His present fate bears witness to this. Other intellectuals have dabbled in Communism at one time or another. They have sloughed it off, and the flirtation might as well never have been. But Koestler is still obsessed by it. Though he may be without roots, he has put out tentacles and now cannot detach them. He himself asks - why do men write autobi-ographies? and he answers - as a cautionary tale. But this is not always the true answer, certainly not true in his case. Men also write autobiographies in order to relive the past, to experience again their triumphs or, it may be, their failures. The interwar years were, for everyone, years of folly and disaster - for Koestler more than for most. One might imagine that he would like to turn his back on them. On the contrary, he writes of nothing else, just as Dickens could never get the boot-blacking factory out of his mind.

There are, then, two Koestlers - the literary artist who is immersed in the past; the human being who has to make do with the present. All Koestler's writings depict the interwar years. In his private life, he says, he searched always for the perfect woman, the Helen of Troy, and was, as in politics, inevitably disillusioned. Outside, he discovered two Utopias. There was the Zionist Utopia in Palestine, and the Socialist Utopia of the Soviet Union. Both have given him material for novels, for volumes of essays, and now for his autobiography. In each case the material stops in 1940. Thereafter, Koestler implies, the two fraudulent Utopias were just the same, only more so. Both again have another curious characteristic in common - Koestler had lost faith before he set eyes on them, or so he implies nowadays. He knew before he reached Palestine that he could not live the Utopian life of physical labour; this Utopia, even if it had some sort of existence, was not for him. Still more, his entire account of Soviet Russia in the Thirties is shot through with contempt and ridicule. Quite rightly: there has never been a community further removed from Utopia than the Soviet Union of the great famine and the great purge. But did Koestler not observe anything of this at the time? Did he - a mature journalist and political student - fail to notice the starving peasants on the railway platforms? He suggests now that he noticed them only unconsciously or accepted the twaddling excuses of Soviet publicity. Surely there is quite a different explanation. The Soviet fraud - the contrast between Utopia and reality - made Communism all the more attractive for him. It is an old story that the highest form of belief is belief in the impossible; and Koestler shared this emotional satisfaction with the early Christians.

Belief, not a settled way of life, was what Koestler was seeking for in the interwar years. Zionism involved digging. He gave it up. Communism meant for him writing articles, delivering lectures; and he clung to it, by his own account, long after his inner faith had been shaken or destroyed. It never seems to occur to him that Communism may be a way of arranging economic life as well as a system of political tyranny. In Soviet Russia he met propagandists, secret policemen - and beautiful women. He hardly mentions the worried managers of factories or even the engine drivers. The Utopian train is assumed to run itself. The important thing is the discussion in the railway carriage, not the men who somehow make the train go. The Soviet Utopia of Koestler's dream did not exist. But he does not now see Soviet Russia by the cold light of reality. He has merely turned things upside down; and what was once Utopia has become instead Hell on earth, a place almost equally imaginary.

The political idealist is likely to be disappointed when he comes into contact with life. Koestler was certainly disappointed; and in this he was "a typical case-history". In the harsh years before 1939 the idealist might expect to end in prison; here, too, Koestler was typical - no man has been in more. But the sorts of prisons he fell into were not at all typical. Siberia and Nazi concentration camps were the typical prisons of the 19305, crammed with political idealists. Koestler never entered either except in imagination. His prisons were in Spain, in France, finally at Pentonville. Experience of these is less common, and less representative. Koestler has "green fingers" so far as prisons are concerned. He can hardly go anywhere without finding himself in jail. But they are jails of an old-fashioned type, clumsy, brutal, careless, but not the jails of the new totalitarian tyrannies. It would be unfair to say that Koestler was happy only in prison. But it is not unfair to say that only there did he find inner peace. He describes the rest of the spirit which came to him at the prison window, the mystical experience which revealed to him "the invisible writing". At last the train had brought him somewhere. In prison Koestler had arrived.

But in Western Europe life does not end in prison. The prison gates open; and life has to begin. It is a stroke of profound symbolism that Koestler's autobiography closes when he left Pentonville. No more Utopias; no more prisons, except as a casual touch of luck. Instead, one would suppose, drab reality. Life brought to Koestler success as an author, material rewards which satisfied his "hedonism", and a comfortable house in Knights-bridge. He could be admired, respected, at ease. But this was not what he wanted. Where previously he had been embittered at failure, now he must be embittered at success. He claims to have grown roots in England; but the way he displays it is to describe England as "a kind of Davos for internally bruised veterans of the totalitarian age". He is exasperated with English softness, exasperated with the low sales of his books here, exasperated that English people do not bestir themselves against Communist tyranny. In England, he writes, "I am only read by highbrows, and even by them only as a penance"; and he refers to the English gift "of looking at reality through a soothing filter".

Perhaps Koestler is not a reliable or penetrating judge of English ways. Perhaps "their lotus-eating disposition" covers a deeper understanding of reality than he supposes. Englishmen are aware of the concentration camps and the gas chambers, but do not regard them as a profitable topic of conversation--or even of literature.

Why should we go on talking about things that are both absurd and repellent? There is no "Communist tyranny" in England: few vote Communist here. Besides, to quote Koestler, even English Communists are "certainly closer to the Pickwick Club than to the Comintern". He condemns, or perhaps praises, them for indulging "in humour and eccentricity--dangerous diversions from the class struggle". Dangerous diversions, we might add, from the anti-Communist struggle also.
Koestler's new fervour sets out to be as fierce as his old. Only he now denounces what he once idealised. He condemns himself for being blind and ignorant. But it is difficult to believe that his new judgements are any more reliable. A political authority who took as long as Koestler did in facing the evil side of Soviet Communism has surely disqualified himself as a guide for the future. Instead of beating a new and bigger drum even more loudly than before, he had better retire from the band. And this is what Koestler has really done, though he is unwilling to admit it. The greatest virtues of his autobiography are not political penetration or religious mysticism; they are "humour and eccentricity". Struwwelpeter was written as a warning tale; but it has brought entertainment to countless nurseries. Koestler would like us to see in him the fanatic of anti-Communism, the martyr in search of a stake; and we do our best. But he preaches with such gusto, describes his sufferings with such gaiety, that we pay him the greatest of compliments. We refuse to take him seriously. He has qualified as an honorary member of the Pickwick Club.

1913 New Statesman a century of free thinking 2013

Arthur Koestler was the author of six novels, six volumes of autobiography and several other works of non-fiction. He died on I March 1983 in a suicide pact with his third wife, Cynthia Jefferies.

paul libbey russell (1934-1996)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5viXpvvYMYEV3ctTjNfR1QxTzQ?usp=sharing

see also
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J497v76n01_02?journalCode=wscs20

Stuart Pizer mentioned about him, in 'Building Bridges' (1998)

Arvo Part Spiegel Im Spiegel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0FPVOU5e0

in the dusk, properly

上车,走吧 (2000)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CMBQfw0xGs

财叔之横扫千军 (1991)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPOyqr5rjNo

立春 (2007)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSy0z9_uCys

Death Wish II (1982)

https://www.google.com.tw/?gws_rd=ssl#q=death+wish+ii+(1982)&spf=75

the old man, from new york, died, in this one

牠對人性感到失望

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uga4HZycf9o

禅----日本佛教电影

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv9UZ-bznUQ

暖春 (2003)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBgeSsgyMMo

夸父的星期天午後

這時3:15PM他有點肚餓找到過期的三天前深夜頂好的買一送一的蛋糕昨晚他去過機場接下來5/8到5/16他都要不停地跑所以今天是最後一天他可以坐下來想一想台灣的未來那個未來跟他正在吃的蛋糕一樣過期不要擔心好心的頂好的店員幽幽地說過保證不會拉肚子

落葉歸根 (2007)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAhedSQ0h74

鼓手 (1983)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KsFkVXVE7o

Stuart Pizer on Impasse etc

Google play 2017-5-7 (1998, reprint 2014)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5viXpvvYMYEWFRJbks0VVlWZDQ?usp=sharing

嚴真和空氣

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edYXSi_q320

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=210s70Cp28s

昨天夸父追日

其實我們不知道他為什麼要這麼做雖然我很高興他曾經在湖南停下來吃飯昨天我們是這麼說的精神分析發生的理由是工具理性過度發達非理性終於反撲而工具理性和非理性的辯證關係跟偉大的台灣總統府發言人徐國勇講的物質不滅定律不同不是你多拿一點我就拿剩下一點是工具理性發達非理性就越發達非理性越發達工具理性就越越發達以此類推就像夸父追日非理性永遠在快速逼近又快速消逝的地平線的後面昨天我說這就是為什麼我們在台灣講精神分析言猶過早的原因因為我們那一點皮毛的工具理性昨晚八點才學會我們的非理性還不自量力這兩者之間的辯證的張力鬆垮無力談甚麼精神分析今天我查了一下才知道台灣國語日報社出版李炳傑編著幼學瓊林的故事說上古時候有一個巨人名叫夸父據說這個巨人右手拿青蛇左手拿黃蛇死了又化為一片森林所以有人說他是神是樹木有人說他是仙人山海經的海外北經大荒北經以及列子湯問都有一段關於夸父追趕太陽的記載傳說他曾經不自量力要追趕太陽的影子日夜不停地窮追不捨一直追到隅谷又叫虞淵是日沒的地方氣候特別熱地方因為大量流汗唇乾舌燥口渴得很就跑到黃河去喝水把黃河的水都喝乾了還覺得渴他又跑到渭水在陜西南部去喝喝完了渭水的水還是不能解渴準備再跑到北方的大湖泊據說是雁門以北的瀚海就是現在的貝加爾湖去喝個夠但是還沒有跑到就在半路上渴死了他死的時候把手杖丟在地上屍體的肉腐化了就長出了鄧林那鄧林很大寬廣數千里鄧林地名有許多說法有人說在河南省和湖北省的交界處在神話中是一片桃林夸父追日雖然是一個神話故事但是有一些傳說附會又使人覺得好像是真的現在湖南省沅陵縣東北鄰接桃源縣的地方有一座山就叫做夸父山俗名撐架山山上有三塊十幾丈高的尖銳大石成品字形聳立著形狀像一個鼎古代煮東西用的器物的三隻腳根據古老的傳說夸父和日競走的時候曾經到這裡休息做飯那三塊大石頭就是夸父放鼎用的說得真像有那麼一回事這個夸父追日的故事後來成了一句成語用以比喻不自量力你現在知道為什麼我們在台灣可以講物質不滅定律但不能講精神分析了吧

Saturday, May 6, 2017

移情

這個字transference

是一個日用語言

說明了偌大北極冰原

兩隻北極熊如何找到彼此

終於相遇

或終於沒有相遇

所以基本上

這是一個移動的概念

從A到B有形的無形的時空上穿越的等等

移動的是甚麼則不一而足

有趣的是為甚麼要移動

是要尋找返回開始的源頭嗎

還可能回到已消逝的源頭嗎

源頭的呼喚為什麼這麼難以抗拒

讓聽到鼓聲的不惜墜崖也要移動

所以讓我們說得更準確一點

這是一個日用的悲劇性語言

有趣的是

日用日用

何來悲劇

親愛的朋友

你要多讀一點

自由時報

或環球時報

多看一點

三立電視

或中央電視

以上這幾個黨的喉舌

每天都在聲嘶力竭

要我們相信

已經消逝的源頭

還在那裡

反移情

這個字countertransference
不是一個正常的字

我的意思是說
字母太多太長

而且反(counter)
言下之意是先有甚麼
才反(counter)

其實它就是
治療者的自知之明

不管那個自知
來自那裡

在他的惡夢中的自知之明
醒來就忘光光的自知之明

你現在知道
他有多明了吧

再說一次那個矛盾

回到歷史

的那個歷史

不是政治正確的歷史

我這輩子沒有能力正確過*

所以那個回到

是落淚的沉默的

高文謙先生回到的

那個不堪的歷史**

回到自然

的那個自然

是人還沒有糟蹋的自然

那樣的自然已極罕見

所以那個回到

是Alexandro Querevalú

閉上眼回到的

那個最後的自然***

* 正確的說法是正確的靠北和趕你羚羊

**

https://kellychang2713.blogspot.tw/search?q=%E9%AB%98%E6%96%87%E8%AC%99

***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93wGaGFUnTs