At the Party with the Physicists
One day, all of the world's famous physicists decided to get together for a party (ok, there were some non-physicists too who crashed the party). Fortunately, the doorman was a grad student, and able to observe some of the guests...
Ø Everyone gravitated toward Newton, but he just kept moving around at a constant velocity and showed no reaction.
Ø Einstein thought it was a relatively good time.
Ø Coulomb got a real charge out of the whole thing.
Ø Cauchy, being the mathematician, still managed to integrate well with everyone.
Ø Thompson enjoyed the plum pudding.
Ø Pauli came late, but was mostly excluded from things, so he split.
Ø Pascal was under too much pressure to enjoy himself.
Ø Ohm spent most of the time resisting Ampere's opinions on current events.
Ø Hamilton went to the buffet tables exactly once.
Ø Volta thought the social had a lot of potential.
Ø Hilbert was pretty spaced out for most of it.
Ø Heisenberg may or may not have been there.
Ø Feynman got from the door to the buffet table by taking every possible path
Ø The Curies were there and just glowed the whole time.
Ø van der Waals forced himeself to mingle.
Ø Wien radiated a colourful personality.
Ø Millikan dropped his Italian oil dressing.
Ø de Broglie mostly just stood in the corner and waved.
Ø Hollerith liked the hole idea.
Ø Stefan and Boltzman got into some hot debates.
Ø Everyone was attracted to Tesla's magnetic personality.
Ø Compton was a little scatter-brained at times.
Ø Bohr ate too much and got atomic ache.
Ø Watt turned out to be a powerful speaker.
Ø Hertz went back to the buffet table several times a minute.
Ø Faraday had quite a capacity for food.
Ø Oppenheimer got bombed.
Ø The microwave started radiating in the background when Penzias and Wilson showed up.
Ø After one bite Chandrasekhar reached his limit.
Ø Gamow left the party early with a big bang while Hoyle stayed late in a steady state.
Ø For Schrodinger this was more a wave function rather than a social function.
Ø Skorucak wanted to put everybody on his web site.
Ø Erdos was sad no epsilons were invited.
Ø Born thought the probability of enjoying himself was pretty high.
Ø Instead of coming through the front door Josephson tunnelled through.
Ø Groucho refused to attend any party that would invite him in the first place.
Ø Niccolò Tartaglia kept stammering throughout the evening.
Ø Pauling wanted to bond with everyone.
Ø Keynes was keen to question the marginal utility of this party.
Ø Shakespeare could not decide whether to be or not to be at the party.
Ø John Forbes Nash wanted to play a n-person zero sum game.
Ø Pavlov brought his dog; which promptly chased after Schrodinger's cat.
Ø Zeno of Elea came with two friends - Achilles and the tortoise.
Ø Bill Gates came to install windows.
Ø Bertrand Russell kept wondering if the cook only cooks for the guests, who cooks for the cook?
Ø Witten bought a present all tied up with superstrings.
Ø The food was beautifully laid out by Mendeleyev on the periodic table.
Ø Riemann hypothesised about who would arrive next; to which Newton retorted, ' hypotheses non fingo.'
Ø Chadwick was handing out neutrons free of charge.
Ø Everyone was amazed at Bell's inequality.
Ø Watson and Crick danced the Double Helix.
Ø While Fermat sang, 'Save the Last Theorem for me.'
Ø Maxwell's demon argued with Dawkin's friend, the selfish Gene.
Ø Russell and Whitehead insisted on checking the bill for completeness and consistency. Godel said it was incomplete and it can never be proved otherwise.
Ø Epimenides the Cretan announced that only non-Cretans spoke the truth.
Ø Rontgen saw through everybody.
Ø Descartes cogitated, 'I think I am drunk. Therefore I am at the party.'
"Every individual has to retain his way of thinking if he doesn't want to be lost in the maze of possibilities. However, nobody is sure to have taken the right route." - Albert Einstein
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Identification of winners and losers
A winner does it. A loser talks about it.
The winner is always a part of the solution to the problem, while the loser is always a part of the problem.
The winner sees an answer for every problem, while the loser sees a problem for every answer.
The winner says, “Let me do it for you!” while the loser says, “That’s NOT my job!”
The winner always has a problem solving approach while the loser always has an excuse.
The winner says, “It may be difficult, but it is possible.” The loser says, “It may be possible, but it is too difficult.”
The winner says, “If it was easy, anyone could do it, but I’ll take the problem on as a challenge and an opportunity.” The loser says, “If anyone can do it, it is easy and I will do it.”
The winner is not afraid of losing. The loser is afraid of winning.
The winner may try and, on occasion, fail while the loser will never try or succeed.
Winners know when t quit; losers don’t know when to quit.
When a winner makes a mistake, he/she says, “I was wrong – I made a mistake!” When the loser makes a mistake, he/she say, “It wasn’t my fault – I have an excuse!”
A winner works harder than a loser and always has more time. A loser is always “too busy” to do what is required.
A winner listens; a loser just waits until it is his turn to talk.
A winner respects those who are superior to him/her and tries to learn from them. A loser resents those who are superior to him/her and tries to find faults and weaknesses with them.
A winner says, “There should be a better way to do it.” The loser says, “That is the way it has always been done.”
A winner say, “I’m good, but I am not as good as I could be.” A loser says, “I’m not as bad as a lot of other people.”
A winner makes commitments. A loser makes promises that generally go unfulfilled.
A winner feels responsible for more than his/her job. A loser says, “I just work here – you don’t expect me to think do you?”
A winner goes through a problem. A loser attempts to go around the problem and never gets past it.
A winner says, “I fell.” A loser says, “Somebody pushed me.”
A winner credits “good luck” for winning – even though it wasn’t his/her good luck. A loser blames “bad luck” for losing – even though it wasn’t his/her bad luck.
A winner makes time. A loser wastes time.
A winner delegates. A loser controls.
A winner wants to do it. A loser feels he/she has to do it.
A winner says, “I’ll plan to do that.” A loser says, “I’ll try to do that.”
A winner translates dreams into reality. A loser translates reality into dreams.
A winner sees a green near every sand-trap. A loser sees at least 2 sand-traps near every green.
The difference between winning and losing is knowing.
A winner does it. A loser talks about it.
The winner is always a part of the solution to the problem, while the loser is always a part of the problem.
The winner sees an answer for every problem, while the loser sees a problem for every answer.
The winner says, “Let me do it for you!” while the loser says, “That’s NOT my job!”
The winner always has a problem solving approach while the loser always has an excuse.
The winner says, “It may be difficult, but it is possible.” The loser says, “It may be possible, but it is too difficult.”
The winner says, “If it was easy, anyone could do it, but I’ll take the problem on as a challenge and an opportunity.” The loser says, “If anyone can do it, it is easy and I will do it.”
The winner is not afraid of losing. The loser is afraid of winning.
The winner may try and, on occasion, fail while the loser will never try or succeed.
Winners know when t quit; losers don’t know when to quit.
When a winner makes a mistake, he/she says, “I was wrong – I made a mistake!” When the loser makes a mistake, he/she say, “It wasn’t my fault – I have an excuse!”
A winner works harder than a loser and always has more time. A loser is always “too busy” to do what is required.
A winner listens; a loser just waits until it is his turn to talk.
A winner respects those who are superior to him/her and tries to learn from them. A loser resents those who are superior to him/her and tries to find faults and weaknesses with them.
A winner says, “There should be a better way to do it.” The loser says, “That is the way it has always been done.”
A winner say, “I’m good, but I am not as good as I could be.” A loser says, “I’m not as bad as a lot of other people.”
A winner makes commitments. A loser makes promises that generally go unfulfilled.
A winner feels responsible for more than his/her job. A loser says, “I just work here – you don’t expect me to think do you?”
A winner goes through a problem. A loser attempts to go around the problem and never gets past it.
A winner says, “I fell.” A loser says, “Somebody pushed me.”
A winner credits “good luck” for winning – even though it wasn’t his/her good luck. A loser blames “bad luck” for losing – even though it wasn’t his/her bad luck.
A winner makes time. A loser wastes time.
A winner delegates. A loser controls.
A winner wants to do it. A loser feels he/she has to do it.
A winner says, “I’ll plan to do that.” A loser says, “I’ll try to do that.”
A winner translates dreams into reality. A loser translates reality into dreams.
A winner sees a green near every sand-trap. A loser sees at least 2 sand-traps near every green.
The difference between winning and losing is knowing.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
《独立新闻在线》回应
回应萧一笑及李祺辉两位读者
2006年3月7日 3时8分 读者：编辑部 独立新闻在线
最近，李祺辉及萧一笑两位读者来函，认为本刊报道“国家知识课程散播族群仇恨”的新闻“仅从种族角度看问题”。本刊感谢诸位提点，但是如何解读本刊对上述现象的报道，本刊认为有必要稍加说明，厘清读者的疑虑。本刊向来反对族群政治，也非议政治人物操弄族群情绪以谋一己私利；本刊自去八月创刊以来，无论处理贪污腐败、警察滥权、人权与民权及新闻自由等议题，都是从马来西亚人的立足点处理新闻与评论，足以证明本刊在族群议题上的鲜明立场。最近的一个例子是本刊记者陈慧思报道雪兰莪中安邦再也木屋区遭市议会强行拆屋，以致其中四户人家以天为被的困境。【点击：被迫成全“零木屋区” 雪州四户“难民”以天为被】至于本刊3月2日的报道《教师向本刊揭露受训内容 国家知识课程散播族群仇恨》及3月3日跟进报道《国家知识课程散播种族仇恨在野党：非秘密 部长：不知情》，本刊绝无从种族角度看待此问题，本刊揭露的是，原本应该促请族群团结的国家机关，却向公务员灌输足以造成族群猜忌、甚至仇恨的意识形态。由于上述报道中受访者提到的例子――例如“513事件是华人造成”及“华人和印度人的公民权”――如果是一个实情（fact），揭露这个实情，不能也不应该被诠释为是“从种族角度看问题”。（李祺辉先生的来函也同意本刊上述报道提出的现象是事实。）揭露政府以训练公务员之名行灌输族群意识心态之实，揭露者反而被批评为“从族群角度看问题”，这怎么都说不过去吧？本刊认为，倘若提出牵涉某个族群的实情，都当着“从种族角度看问题”，那么马来西亚这个社会里的许多弊端恐怕都无法提出来讨论和整顿，而马来西亚社会永远无法进步，也永远无法遏止政客们不断行使族群政治手段。一碰到与族群有关的问题，便把它界定为“从种族角度看问题”，恐怕才是真正的“从种族角度看问题”。李祺辉认为，政府开办国家知识课程的用意为“鼓励公务员效忠政府”，甚于“散播族群仇恨”，《教师向本刊揭露受训内容 国家知识课程散播族群仇恨》及《国家知识课程散播种族仇恨 在野党：非秘密部长：不知情》二文高调处理“散播族群仇恨”部分，有“片面了解及诠释”之嫌。必须说明的是，每则新闻有不同的角度、范围，上述二文的目的是揭露国家知识课程含有散播族群意识的内容，并非探讨课程真正的开办目的及介绍课程，因此，本刊重点处理“课程散播族群仇恨”；将“鼓励公务员效忠政府”列于次位，乃新闻取角不同，不应视为“片面了解”及“片面诠释”。李祺辉先生提到上述报道中有“排华”言论，事实上那是引述揭秘者的感受；即使如此，在上诉报道中，受访者也没有一口咬定那是“排华”。当然，如何定义“排华”，每个读者恐怕会有不同的理解。对于国家机关向公务员灌输族群猜忌的意识形态，本刊感到十分痛心，记者陈慧思在报道中写道：“马来人、华人、印度人，看似水乳交融，却又那么疏离。1969 年5月13日，离远了，却又那么近。三大民族歌舞升平、共存共荣的景象，数十年来成为国家领袖热烈吹捧的国家形象。可是，平和如绸的表面，掩埋着不为人知的烂孔破疮”，正是深刻反映本刊对首相署可能造成族群关系疏离而焦虑。萧一笑提出，“有许多评论显得过于偏激，对事情的看法很多时候流于情绪的发泄”，本刊欢迎萧一笑来函具体点名他认为过于偏激及发泄情绪的评论，以便我们检讨是否确实如此。不过，本刊也希望读者明白，我国过去数十年生活在言论尺度备受压抑的环境，也许很多人习惯了这个不能说，那个不能讲的生活方式，甚至在潜意识里认为那才是正常的，所以难以适应新时代、新媒体言论尺度相对宽松的现实。本刊深切希望，读者们能认清时代的进步，与我们携手打造一个可以畅所欲言的社会，开拓言论空间；虽然这路并不容易走，也正因不易走，我们希望读者能继续支持我们。
谢谢。
《独立新闻在线》编辑部 启
2006年3月7日 3时8分 读者：编辑部 独立新闻在线
最近，李祺辉及萧一笑两位读者来函，认为本刊报道“国家知识课程散播族群仇恨”的新闻“仅从种族角度看问题”。本刊感谢诸位提点，但是如何解读本刊对上述现象的报道，本刊认为有必要稍加说明，厘清读者的疑虑。本刊向来反对族群政治，也非议政治人物操弄族群情绪以谋一己私利；本刊自去八月创刊以来，无论处理贪污腐败、警察滥权、人权与民权及新闻自由等议题，都是从马来西亚人的立足点处理新闻与评论，足以证明本刊在族群议题上的鲜明立场。最近的一个例子是本刊记者陈慧思报道雪兰莪中安邦再也木屋区遭市议会强行拆屋，以致其中四户人家以天为被的困境。【点击：被迫成全“零木屋区” 雪州四户“难民”以天为被】至于本刊3月2日的报道《教师向本刊揭露受训内容 国家知识课程散播族群仇恨》及3月3日跟进报道《国家知识课程散播种族仇恨在野党：非秘密 部长：不知情》，本刊绝无从种族角度看待此问题，本刊揭露的是，原本应该促请族群团结的国家机关，却向公务员灌输足以造成族群猜忌、甚至仇恨的意识形态。由于上述报道中受访者提到的例子――例如“513事件是华人造成”及“华人和印度人的公民权”――如果是一个实情（fact），揭露这个实情，不能也不应该被诠释为是“从种族角度看问题”。（李祺辉先生的来函也同意本刊上述报道提出的现象是事实。）揭露政府以训练公务员之名行灌输族群意识心态之实，揭露者反而被批评为“从族群角度看问题”，这怎么都说不过去吧？本刊认为，倘若提出牵涉某个族群的实情，都当着“从种族角度看问题”，那么马来西亚这个社会里的许多弊端恐怕都无法提出来讨论和整顿，而马来西亚社会永远无法进步，也永远无法遏止政客们不断行使族群政治手段。一碰到与族群有关的问题，便把它界定为“从种族角度看问题”，恐怕才是真正的“从种族角度看问题”。李祺辉认为，政府开办国家知识课程的用意为“鼓励公务员效忠政府”，甚于“散播族群仇恨”，《教师向本刊揭露受训内容 国家知识课程散播族群仇恨》及《国家知识课程散播种族仇恨 在野党：非秘密部长：不知情》二文高调处理“散播族群仇恨”部分，有“片面了解及诠释”之嫌。必须说明的是，每则新闻有不同的角度、范围，上述二文的目的是揭露国家知识课程含有散播族群意识的内容，并非探讨课程真正的开办目的及介绍课程，因此，本刊重点处理“课程散播族群仇恨”；将“鼓励公务员效忠政府”列于次位，乃新闻取角不同，不应视为“片面了解”及“片面诠释”。李祺辉先生提到上述报道中有“排华”言论，事实上那是引述揭秘者的感受；即使如此，在上诉报道中，受访者也没有一口咬定那是“排华”。当然，如何定义“排华”，每个读者恐怕会有不同的理解。对于国家机关向公务员灌输族群猜忌的意识形态，本刊感到十分痛心，记者陈慧思在报道中写道：“马来人、华人、印度人，看似水乳交融，却又那么疏离。1969 年5月13日，离远了，却又那么近。三大民族歌舞升平、共存共荣的景象，数十年来成为国家领袖热烈吹捧的国家形象。可是，平和如绸的表面，掩埋着不为人知的烂孔破疮”，正是深刻反映本刊对首相署可能造成族群关系疏离而焦虑。萧一笑提出，“有许多评论显得过于偏激，对事情的看法很多时候流于情绪的发泄”，本刊欢迎萧一笑来函具体点名他认为过于偏激及发泄情绪的评论，以便我们检讨是否确实如此。不过，本刊也希望读者明白，我国过去数十年生活在言论尺度备受压抑的环境，也许很多人习惯了这个不能说，那个不能讲的生活方式，甚至在潜意识里认为那才是正常的，所以难以适应新时代、新媒体言论尺度相对宽松的现实。本刊深切希望，读者们能认清时代的进步，与我们携手打造一个可以畅所欲言的社会，开拓言论空间；虽然这路并不容易走，也正因不易走，我们希望读者能继续支持我们。
谢谢。
《独立新闻在线》编辑部 启
《独立新闻在线》-读者来函
拜读《独立新闻在线--国家知识课程散播族群仇恨》之报道，对于此事，笔者欲提出本身浅见。
首先必须向读者理清，“国家知识课程” （Kursus Kenegaraan）是每位政府公务员必须接受的其中一项课程，而不只限于老师。从政府医院医生，大学讲师，中小学校老师，到政府办公室书记，都会有机会接受这项课程。在现有的擢升制度下，公务员必须接受国家知识课程，以便获得其中一项擢升资格。尤其对于新征收的公务员，这是一项必然的受训课程。甚至是一些受政府保送出国念书的学生，在还没有出国之前，也有可能被征召受训。课程主要设在各州的国家营地内，为期4到5天。课程内容与报道相类似，但还有一些体能练习、越野徒步(jungle tracking)等。笔者曾是公务员，于是参加过该项课程。
广义而言，课程内容主要灌输公务员对于国阵政府的认同，感恩，并珍惜国阵政府的努力和贡献；身为公务员，必须效忠政府，贯彻政府政策等云云。于是，讲师们会举出各种各样的数据来证明国家比以前进步；例如：国阵政府把30到40%的总开销用在教育上；各项“庞大“且“宏伟“的建设；与其他相对贫穷的国家对比国民生产总值等等。其实，课程内容和各项数据早已由首相署属下的国家法则组（Biro Tatanegara）预备。讲师们只是被训练来传达其内容而已。
此外，课程也会向学员展示三大种族上大学人数、考获一等文凭、贫富差距、平均收入、国民失业率、政府文凭考试成绩等数据，来证明马来人依然落在其他种族之后，所以仍然需要固打制来改善马来人落后问题。讲师也会试图向在场的非巫裔“解释”并合理化政府之政策。
报道形容这是一项“洗脑”的工程、灌输“马来人施恩论“、“马来人至上论”的企图，笔者基本上是认同的。但是，笔者必须强调，课程不仅仅是针对华人。广义而言，笔者不排除国阵政府有利用国家机关与资源来进行政治宣传，企图安抚民心，或至少顺服广大政府公务员的心机。对于“排华“之言论可能有过激之嫌，这点笔者有所保留。但是，讲师通常会在言语和字里行间里，或贬低、或摸黑某些国家和团体，来凸现国阵政府的“中庸“和“大义“。对于一些没有政治觉醒的公务员而言，被“洗脑“的可能性很大。
没有经历过这类课程的公众，可能很难想象理解政府的意图。贵刊的多项报道和受访者的言论可信度很高，但是如果仅仅把它形容成“排华”或“ 散播族群仇恨“，可能容易引起公众的误解。越过种族角度的观点，课程潜在目的可能在于顺服巫裔公务员对于国政政府的施恩论，向非巫裔和其他少数民族合理化一些受争议的政策（如：固打制，私营化等）；崇拜化甚至神化国家领袖等。
让此课题浮上台面是积极的。笔者想强调，仅从种族角度出发看待问题，有过于狭隘之嫌；广义而论，这是公器私用、诋毁他人（包括个人，其他族群，团体甚至其他国家）来奉承自己的心机。公务员是应该了解和贯彻政府所订下的政策，并向上司、政府、国家和广大人民负责，尽忠职守。但是，除了了解职责，也是公民的公务员，更应该理清国阵、政府与国家的关系与观念。把国阵等同于政府，再等同于国家是无知的；不认同国阵就是反政府、反国家是疑痴的。
让公众理性与真正了解课程目的、内容、运作方式是重要的。片面了解与诠释，往往造成仅是情绪的发泄、或人事纷争，对于了解真相和解决问题没有帮助。
首先必须向读者理清，“国家知识课程” （Kursus Kenegaraan）是每位政府公务员必须接受的其中一项课程，而不只限于老师。从政府医院医生，大学讲师，中小学校老师，到政府办公室书记，都会有机会接受这项课程。在现有的擢升制度下，公务员必须接受国家知识课程，以便获得其中一项擢升资格。尤其对于新征收的公务员，这是一项必然的受训课程。甚至是一些受政府保送出国念书的学生，在还没有出国之前，也有可能被征召受训。课程主要设在各州的国家营地内，为期4到5天。课程内容与报道相类似，但还有一些体能练习、越野徒步(jungle tracking)等。笔者曾是公务员，于是参加过该项课程。
广义而言，课程内容主要灌输公务员对于国阵政府的认同，感恩，并珍惜国阵政府的努力和贡献；身为公务员，必须效忠政府，贯彻政府政策等云云。于是，讲师们会举出各种各样的数据来证明国家比以前进步；例如：国阵政府把30到40%的总开销用在教育上；各项“庞大“且“宏伟“的建设；与其他相对贫穷的国家对比国民生产总值等等。其实，课程内容和各项数据早已由首相署属下的国家法则组（Biro Tatanegara）预备。讲师们只是被训练来传达其内容而已。
此外，课程也会向学员展示三大种族上大学人数、考获一等文凭、贫富差距、平均收入、国民失业率、政府文凭考试成绩等数据，来证明马来人依然落在其他种族之后，所以仍然需要固打制来改善马来人落后问题。讲师也会试图向在场的非巫裔“解释”并合理化政府之政策。
报道形容这是一项“洗脑”的工程、灌输“马来人施恩论“、“马来人至上论”的企图，笔者基本上是认同的。但是，笔者必须强调，课程不仅仅是针对华人。广义而言，笔者不排除国阵政府有利用国家机关与资源来进行政治宣传，企图安抚民心，或至少顺服广大政府公务员的心机。对于“排华“之言论可能有过激之嫌，这点笔者有所保留。但是，讲师通常会在言语和字里行间里，或贬低、或摸黑某些国家和团体，来凸现国阵政府的“中庸“和“大义“。对于一些没有政治觉醒的公务员而言，被“洗脑“的可能性很大。
没有经历过这类课程的公众，可能很难想象理解政府的意图。贵刊的多项报道和受访者的言论可信度很高，但是如果仅仅把它形容成“排华”或“ 散播族群仇恨“，可能容易引起公众的误解。越过种族角度的观点，课程潜在目的可能在于顺服巫裔公务员对于国政政府的施恩论，向非巫裔和其他少数民族合理化一些受争议的政策（如：固打制，私营化等）；崇拜化甚至神化国家领袖等。
让此课题浮上台面是积极的。笔者想强调，仅从种族角度出发看待问题，有过于狭隘之嫌；广义而论，这是公器私用、诋毁他人（包括个人，其他族群，团体甚至其他国家）来奉承自己的心机。公务员是应该了解和贯彻政府所订下的政策，并向上司、政府、国家和广大人民负责，尽忠职守。但是，除了了解职责，也是公民的公务员，更应该理清国阵、政府与国家的关系与观念。把国阵等同于政府，再等同于国家是无知的；不认同国阵就是反政府、反国家是疑痴的。
让公众理性与真正了解课程目的、内容、运作方式是重要的。片面了解与诠释，往往造成仅是情绪的发泄、或人事纷争，对于了解真相和解决问题没有帮助。
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
总是在夜深人静的十分，有许多人生的思考。。。
在水池中不断挣扎求存，许多时候反而越陷越深。。。想把握手中的沙堆，越抓越紧，却越快失去。。。不见了的东西，越想找回，却越找不到。。。生活、事业、爱情遇到瓶颈，陷入困顿里头，越想不开，越容易转牛角尖。。。
如果能在急时保持镇定，深呼吸，身体会浮在水上；把双掌张开衬沙，除了装得多，且抓得更牢。。。许多不见了的小东西，往往在不知觉中发现；人生在困顿是，或暂时放下或退一步思考下一步该如何应对，往往能够扭转乾坤，事物就这样解决，。。。
或许大理论是过于理想主义；但实践却是更加确切实际。。。大道理谁也会说，但真正能实践在生活中却是非常困难。。。是的，所以佛家会说，修行是一项艰苦的训练；所以圣经教导信徒信主需要付出很大的代价，甚至生命。。。。共产主义当初也往理想前进，但许多人性的弱点，让实践成为永不可能的空中楼阁。。。
只谈理想的人，是天真浪漫型的。。。。只埋头蛮干的人，是无知可爱型的。。。
对于我而言，道理/理论与实践是相同重要的。。。。理论是实践的行动指标，而实验则是检验真理和理论的唯一途径。。。。
爱情就一定是浪漫而不能理性的吗？？道德就只有对错而不能有其他诠释吗？？性取向就只能是异性而不能有同性或双性的吗？？事物就只有黑白而不能有灰色地带吗？？科学和宗教就一定是对立的吗？？理想和现实难道就一定遥不可及的吗？？天地的界限又如何定义？？
宇宙之大，人之奥秘，又岂能用单纯的二分法可以诠释？？周而复始的人生，如何寻找意义？？存在的价值又是什么？？
仰望星空，才会让骄傲的灵魂变得谦虚，才会让膨胀的自我变得渺小。。。有人因此接受上帝伟大的权柄，有人相信所谓业力推动不断循环的虚空。。。。但，真理又是什么？？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
