06/14/2015

這篇筆記，寫成一直未能貼出 (就是忙嘛)；數周來心情雖已不復初始，卻總覺得有「甚麼事沒做完」的感覺；做為以部落格寫日記心態的部落客，心情的經歷還是值得筆記，所以，刪減、修改、再續之後貼出如下。

05/26/2015

又是一個長周末。
又是一個讀了幾本書、看了一大堆的電影的長周末。

其中一部PBS拍的影片The Gathering Swarms 是今天寫這篇筆記的主因。

前幾日，在網友拙拙的「~門前冷落車馬稀」(數學符號~意為not之意)裡，問、答有關醬缸文化，NS懂得做幾道數學題 (也常常滷缸牛腱、滷豆腐、滷海帶吃的)，人文哲理就非我所長 (也向來不是我愛看、愛想的方向)；拙拙在「醬缸?好文轉載」裡，對我不懂所謂「人性化的法家」問題，以儒學大師徐復觀先生對「儒家對中國歷史運命掙扎之一例」做回覆，讓肚子沒一點墨水的NS閉嘴想了幾天，無話可說。

因為，不懂。

不懂就該惦惦嗎?!! (不懂就因此作罷，從來不是NS個性) 用「儒家的人性政治」與「人性化的法家」這兩個主句，向google大神朝拜去，讀了幾篇，有說「儒家的人性觀導致政治人格的不獨立」，有說「人性化的法家造成中華文化的『外儒內法』」、、、種種說法都不能讓NS頑固的數理腦袋明瞭，何以儒家、法家的「人性化」之後，在這些討論裡，都結論成如此不堪? 各家之言，某些說詞，NS有同意也有不同意，整體說來，這些論說，都只讓NS更加惘然。因為，我還是不能接受所謂的「人性化的儒家」或「人性化的法家」就是「永恆的腐敗」。怎麼會?

「人性化的x家」與「腐敗」何以可畫上等號? I don't see it and I can't get it。直線思考的NS腦袋不能接受諸家之言，也還是不肯就此罷休地，潛伏在大腦buffer zone裡。直到，看到這部PBS攝製的The Gathering of Swarms，突然，打結的地方暢通起來。

畫面拍得美得不得了的The Gathering of Swarms，在美景背後的主題是，物種的生存在「群體唯一無我」與「個體自由意識」兩者之間的平衡。

「群體唯一無我」是物種成為一巨大數量一以貫之的視為一整體，個體無自主意識、，甚至要為群體犧牲，以成就群體的生存。

「個體自由意識」是物種容許個體自主意識的發展，群體的生存不一定靠整體無我地以維護群體的生存。

這兩種意識，到底是甚麼東東? 何劣何優? NS到底在說啥? 要看下面的影片:
(影片很新，找得到的youtube可能是版權的問題，不是HD畫質。建議看原版的影片，畫面拍得真的很美，很美、、、)

這片CD影片的精心攝製，慢動作畫面美極了；富哲理的旁白，佐以理性觀察的攝影，讓我聯想到拙拙醬缸一文的問與答。

如果將「群體唯一無我」與「個體自主意識」的兩條路線，聯想成「法家」與「儒家」人性化後的差異，誰是誰非、孰劣孰優就不需爭執，Mother Nature將選擇權交予物種自己做主，群體與個體兩路線是交互，而非互斥的路線，因為物種唯有「適者」才能生存。環境不是一成不變，路線的選擇也不需一成不變。

下面是The Gathering Swarms最後一章，個體v.s.群體，的旁白，因為是關於「群體」與「個體」的行為表現，是影片的主旨，所以抄錄於下:  

Sometimes even large gathering of mamals can show the kind of collected intelligence perfected by one social insects, it's called the Great Migration, a vast moment of zebras and wildebeest across the plains of East Africa.

Their biggest barrier is the Mara River and here a wrong decision can easily mean death. The wildebeest do everything together, and uasually their collective thinking pays off; in contrast, zebras usually travel in family groups, and the lead mare makes the decision.

Crocodiles regularly put these different strategies to the test. The zebras are wary. They know that crocs means troubles. But the wildebeest aren't so canny. By relying on each other to warm of danger, they seen oblivious to the threat.

This time, the wildebeests' collective intelligence failed them, while the zebras' individual intelligence kept them alive. But when the wildebeest finally cross the river, things aren't so straightforward. Once one goes, they all do, those behind blindly following those in front.

The zebras deliberately avoid the appearently mindless masses and chart their own course across the river.

With thr river full of vulnerable animals, the crocs make their move. But they soon discover that it's not that easy. Among the flailing hoovers, the crocs can't single out a target.

Faced by overwhelming numbers, the crocs make a retreat. Following the crowd has actually worked for the wildbeest. But for the zebras, independance of mind has it's own dangers. Their well-considered plan didn't account for the crocodiles. One of their own, zebras are an easy target. For the foal and his mother, it was a close call.

Meanwhile, the wildebeest have led themselves up a blindly pinned against a wall that's impossible to climb. They flounder, but the mass of bodies pushing from behind help some to start scalling the wall, probing it for escape route.

As the wildebeest spread along the bank, they test each section for a possible way out. Their numbers increase the chances of one of them succeeding.

The zebras make it to their careful chosen spot but, although they avoided the crush, the bank is too high to climb. The zebras are still paying the price for their independence of mind.

But, by collectively probing the bank, the wildebeest are quick to follow. This time, the wisdom of the crowd pays off. The whole herd funnels up the exit.

It doesn't take the zebra long to notice. But, in the rush for freedom, there's one who's been left behind. Reunited, the family will rejoint the migration and benefit once more from the knowledge of the crowd.

Animals in extraordinary numbers become more than the sum of their parts. They create natural's own special intelligence the mysterrious wisdom of many minds working as one.

前幾天，讀到一篇「行為科學」範疇的文章，似乎又可以聯想成兩路線之爭:

Dear David, 
How do you define the difference between behavior and culture? Does behavior drive culture, or does culture drive behavior?

Sincerely,
Natural Order of Things

Dear Natural, 
The short answer is that behavior determines culture, and culture determines behavior. But it’s more complicated than that, and the complications make it a fascinating topic...

對全文有興趣的，請點閱 Crucial Skills: The Differences Between Behavior and Culture

這篇文章裡，作者提到Albert Bandura的學說Reciprocal Determinism，Bandura主張: behavior is influenced by both personal and environmental factors, but added that people, through their behavior, also influence themselves and their environment。

這說法，應該就是我對「法家」與「儒家」的「直線思考」的看法與結論嘍!!

p.s. (1) 對NS言，「人性化的x家」與「腐敗」間，並沒有等號~
p.s. (2) Crucial Skills一文是定時收到的news letter，常有值得一讀的好文，喜愛者把網頁收到favorate去，常讀，應可有不少收穫。