筆記《唐國鬼宴》

放假不讀沉重書，五一拿起的是日本作家夢枕獏的《沙門空海之唐國鬼宴》。獏之音義在網上謠傳頗多，訓詁這種動物名倒是另一個有趣的故事，按下不表。將來效推理作家京極夏彥的手法再寫。

沙門，也就是和尚。空海是日本非常著名的佛教大師，入盛唐求密宗真言。潮流愛講惡搞，不愛二次創作，但《沙門空海》正是借此題發揮。講日本人如何挪用中國故事者甚多，夢枕獏這個故事由皇帝到白居易柳宗元李白晁衡都拿來玩，倒是三國以外連中國作者也少見的題材。

今日翻起首幾章節，又遇一宗寓言。

空海與同行橘逸勢在長安的街上遇到黑衣老人。（夢枕獏倒是幽默，當時日本三大書法家有兩個拿在一起用，橘的作用如周瑜於三國演義；而第三個他用不起，乃是當時嵯峨天皇。）黑衣老人所施法術有如《聊齋》所載《種梨》故事，先是拿出一顆種子，翻土埋下，口念「冒芽」，芽就冒起；口念「開花」，開出兩花；最後長成兩顆西瓜。

空海當場用日語與橘點出真相：因為大家都被黑衣老人的口語法術迷惑，說道甚麼就會看到甚麼。

「所謂知識，委實恐怖。... 知識可以使人明理，也可以讓人盲目。若不懂唐語，就不會中術。不知道撒種、萌芽、開花、結果這些道理，也不會中術。」空海如是說。

空海說，橘不懂唐語，所以不替他翻譯，橘就會看到真相。橘故意問老人要兩個西瓜，空海故意將老人的話倒轉來譯，老人講「撒種」，空海譯「沒有撒種」；老人說「萌芽」，空海翻「沒有萌芽」，橘果然看穿了法術。

黑衣老人卻不驚訝，反倒看出空海的本事，於是送西瓜給空海二人。老人自稱方士，知道空海出身，笑曰聲稱要「盜經」的空海或要將「整個大唐都盜光了」。

道別之後，空海稍稍自明得意，不料忽然發覺拿著西瓜的雙手濕起來，瓜果掉下，化成兩棵狗頭。

「知識真是恐怖啊！自己不是這才剛剛說過嗎？」夢枕獏以此作結。「不愧是大唐國。那是個我所不及的人。」

文學讀者之類比攀附，空海聽到或即失笑。所謂「唐國鬼宴」方才擺上，而方士也者，今日又稱道長。今日道長也者，又會去修佛；空海也說，他要講的，不過是「人」與「知識」的故事。對儒對和尚或對觀眾而言，西瓜固然可口、實質若真是狗頭的話卻真恐怖，無論所唸的是甚麼知識，可以看得多清楚，到頭來還是無欲則剛。

旁觀者自以為清醒，還是要補一句：最後空海卻自唐密化東密，到了今天，西傳回來中國。或如伊斯蘭文明將希臘羅馬文明存起來，巧妙避過基督文明封鎖，這是禮失求諸野，或是昔日文人南來之遺願，或是今日各路當局者之所迷。

Man-Ghost Test Package for pan Dem version 1.0

The trend is you want to know who is a Man who is a Ghost against CCP.  What happened in this week is a test to Hongkongers about their lines to take for the five to ten years to come. Here comes the question 1.

Question 1. Miss Chan Ran did not deny her being the member of Communist Youth League of China. SACE chose her to be his assistant in the CE-elect office. Is there any problem?

Approaching to the election, the con-SACE (c.f. Pro-establishment) in Hong Kong came to a divide on who should be blamed for the success of SACE. Tang's Camp and big businesses blamed the Pan Dem played "Blank Vote" strategy, Pan Dem and other Social Movement leaders suspected Radical Left were Commie spies sabotage the Pan Dem lines. Even the self-proclaimed-popular-online Radical Left had their divisions.

Surprisingly, they even had this division in face of their common commie-phobia (CCP!?!). To answer question 1, the latest "Yazhou Zhoukan" ("Asian Weekly") had this "Hong Kong's witch-hunting air and McCarthyism" (香港獵巫氛圍與麥卡錫主義 in Chinese). MingPao, the magazine's more popular newspaper sister, covered several comments in support of this line by stating that the membership of Communist Youth League of China is so popular that even a normal secondary students would be one of them. Popular Pan Dem commentator Ivan Choy Chi-keung and Liberal Columnist Leung Man Tao also wrote comments on this line. On the other side, Hong Kong Economic Journal tried to trace the line and pointed out Miss Chan's relation with other core members in different departments responding to Hong Kong affairs in the Central Government. Mr. Wan Chin, the hardcore spiritual leader of Hong Kong Autonomony Movement, even replied with a wiki page of Nuremburg to cast his doubt to whom still support Miss Chan.

Question 2. Mr Cheng Yiu-tong, the pro-China union leader (yes, there exist such thing) and Executive Council Member, asserted that Hongkongers should not reject the interference of the Central Government with her "goodwill". Should you agree with him?

We did not see how they answer the other two questions yet. Obviously, Mr. Chin, HKEJ and Radical Left would response Question 2 easily with a big NO. Their answer is clear: CCP is not worth a trust so a "goodwill" will never be possible. However, MingPao group and the Pan Dem will have a dilemma: how far you should accept the interference? Even MingPao would always take those 16-words cliché from Basic Law to reinstate the special status of Hong Kong: 一國兩制 港人治港 高度自治 五十年不變 ("One country two system, Hong Kong people rules themselves, high level of autonomony and fifty years of stability"). If they try to give hazy answers, here comes question 3.

Question 3. Mr. Cheng Yiu-tong's argument, again. Since the bereaucracy of Hong Kong is so huge, the Accountability System should be expended to promote the government policy. Do you agree with him?

Now Ms. Chan is acceptable because she is a low-ranked official, how high would you reject? If Communist Youth League is the weaker version, underground Communist can only be a allegation as well as a conspiracy, then how hard the version would you reject?

Moreover, Question 3 should be further examined because it is exactly the "goodwill" of Beijing government and her interference under "goodwill" that led to this legitimacy crisis.

Why the SACE is so disliked? The legal answer is he was elected by only 1200 people, agreed and allowed with the rule set by Beijing. The realpolitik answer is the appointment rule, set by Beijing, was changed by Beijing at the end.

Why you need the Accountability System? Because the "goodwill" did not allow a wider support Legco to really disapprove the poor policy.

Why you need to "promote" the government policy? Because in the past, the Hong Kong government adopted the bottom-up policy formation even in the AO level. They consulted and amended and lobbied before they passed the promotion issues to the Information Services Department and the revised paper to Legco. Now even Beijing planned for the Hong Kong government: the high speed rail, Article 23 and the likes. So people have to be educated, policies have to be promoted. Top down model or style has its linkage again traced back to CCP.

As frogs in the warm water for too long, all the con-SACE people should ask yourself these three questions. They are not three questions, but one. Fairly speaking, it is not about surrender or not, it is just about how far you take Article 2 and 3 in Basic Law.  Should there be any bottom line, this is the one.  As Pan Demo had been "Pan" because of their united front for the 2017 universal suffrage, how about the another unstated united front against any common problems?

Article 2
The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

Article 3
The executive authorities and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of permanent residents of Hong Kong in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law.

別在深山喊獵巫

一、

讀到亞洲周刊一篇文章《香港獵巫氛圍與麥卡錫主義》，引述北方來港工作的自由派異見人士，認為香港人這陣子對梁振英或陳冉的共產黨背景異常敏感，說香港人獵巫和麥卡錫主義。香港人何辜？我說過，寫香港政事不用中文，所以，我想說的﹐是獵巫和麥卡錫主義這兩個字，和思考甚麼時候喊獵巫，才不會被指摘「獵巫」？

二、

獵巫起初是指中世紀基督徒為保持宗教的純正，對付尤其是女性的異教徒。由於手段殘酷，加上後期如其他政治運動一樣，變成了一個誣告的行動，連一個女人稍為思想突出，也被視為女巫。年前有電影《穹蒼下的女神》，講的是女哲學家希帕提亞，正是這個風暴的死難者。所以，啟蒙運動後的歐洲，視「獵巫」為貶意詞，意義近乎文革所謂「上綱上線」以至「迫害」，是「主流」思想對少數思想的迫害，也是子虛烏有的歇斯底里。

而麥卡錫主義則是美國二次大戰之後，自由美國猶恐共產主義滲透，參議員麥卡錫推動「非美調查委員會」，鼓勵同行互相揭發，結果喜劇大師差利亦不能倖免。又正如獵巫，到最後很多都其實是假指控。結果麥卡錫主義在美國政治，變成貶意詞，意指弄權政客煽動公眾恐慌，再獲取公權力，迫害反對份子或異己。

將兩者放在一起，如果是西方社會，這是很嚴重的指控：既是過份憂慮，亦是政治迫害，涉及公權力的濫用。

三、

我想起台灣作家司馬中原的《巫蠱》。司馬中原用最簡單的方法介紹的話，即是一個真的懂寫文學的恐怖熱線潘紹聰。他一樣有電台節目講鬼講怪，但也有一大堆書講民俗，講庶民。小時候在圖書館看到這本書會驚：因為有個版本的封面是一雙黃色眼白的鬼眼盯著讀者，只是近來偶然在某學校的圖書館裏看到，大喇喇地不理會正事，津津有味地看起來。

這本書的引言，寫到這個似是真事。司馬先生說有讀者不遠千里來告訴他自己的經歷，正如衛斯理一樣，他也說事情古怪也猶疑應否記下來。對我們這些聽怪事聽得多的人來說，讀下去也不是甚麼奇事。不過，司馬先生文筆精釆，講的故事也有質感，猶以當中某女角讓人毛骨悚然，這是後話。

主角家人總是早死，家人都說是祖上有人中了蠱惑；主角半信半疑，終歸因為深山學校有教職，逃避家中怪事。正如所有主角一樣，這個處於深山的小學教師，自然以文明人自居。當身邊人講巫師的恐怖時，講授文明道義。然而想到自己家族的咒詛，也不由得心驚膽戰。結果，陰差陽錯，真的遇到巫師下蠱遇到生命危險卻是太遲。

至於後來如何黑白巫師大戰，主角下場如何，還是如此那樣，按下不表。不過，文明國度裏有巫師管轄的深山；深山裏又有孤獨的小村。我在想：人是無辜文明人，從城市逃入深山避遠古的詛咒；在沒有山下的文明騷擾，山是巫師的深山；你或會怪命運播弄主角，或笑他不認主人，不懂作客，但你怎能要這個文明人別在深山喊獵巫？

Law or No Law

失明的持份者

有時不太願意教所謂持分者分析法。這種方法好處是可以很容易做到多角度思考同一問題。但同時，這種方法也有它的盲點，而這個盲點在這個香港非常危險。

立法會將會三讀版權修訂條例，其中最具爭議性的，是關於政府應否獲授權，不用經創作人舉報或不用知會創作人，直接起訴懷疑侵權的物品，亦關於二次創作及網絡分享（如facebook share）應否納入條例。，今日引起我去討論的，是一個網友的fb status。

網友的status，意思大概如此。他呼籲朋友響應網上聯署反對修訂。但結果是收到一個朋友的留言：這是創作人的問題，不要化大事件，小心被人利用，我不幹二次創作與我何干?

「二次創作」事關言論自由及創作自由，亦是一直以來藝術家創作手法。簡單來說，二次創作與作家引經據典，與畫家用符號互相指涉沒有無別。最多人說的例子如現代普普藝術大師Andy
Warhol一幅以瑪麗蓮夢露為題的傑作。為了表達這類意見，喜歡惡搞者借此為題，亦一早已創作了一幅作品以發表自己的看法。




從「持分者」的方法看，創作人因為自身的「利益」，以及他們(崇尚自由的「價值觀」所以必須反對這條條例。用「持份者」的方法分析，我們往往會代入「參與」這個議題的不同角色。以「應否支持修訂」為題的話，大型唱片公司和電視台認為share的人侵權，所以不 會參與，但「一般網友」會認為自己也不過是分享自己所好，大公司也想自己的產品多些人可以接觸到；政府就應該要「平衡」各方意見。而上面那位朋友，基於這個理由，於是就會推論：既然這只是他們的「利益」，事件「化大」只對他們有好處，而我不屬於這個「群體」，所以這件事我不應參與。

「持分者」這種分析方法，本來就是建基於一個假設：在一個政策實施的時候，每個人都會有自己的利益，而這些利益往往互相衝突。但在我們的教與學的過程裏面，往往忽視了這種方法的另一個很重要的元素，就是不同群體在同樣的議題裏，其實沒有相同的權力。因此，我們可以回應這位朋友：那麼你是否同意「政府應該有這個權力」？

一直以來，人們拿新加坡和香港作比較的時候，都會認為香港有一個很重要的優勢，就是創作和言論自由。當這個香港的整體優勢被歸類到只屬某個相關團體的時候，我們又會否忽略到一點，就是所謂「持分者」的「利益」其實是否屬於普世價值？如果那是普世價值的時候，單以「利益」而論，則忽視了這個議題可能在社會其他方面會引起的影響。於是，第二個回應可以是：這會不會其實是「公眾利益」而不單單是創作人的問題？

這亦能帶出「持份者」這種分析法的第三個要注意的地方：既然議題有可能不單是個別群體的問題，勉強將之分開，會否間接鼓勵了套板印象，而漠視了社會的實況和群體內部的差異。以這次事件為例，一般人會以為電影受翻版影響下，所有電影人都會同意保護自己的作品吧？但在港台的一個訪問裏（《人文講場》2012/4/12），有獨立電影導演卻反對修訂條例，而理由正是創作自由不容任何形式的威脅。那麼，電影人這個角色應該怎樣分野呢？

為作答而教，有時也可以說服自己。但問心，若果真心相信這些了解事情的方法到底有時也真的用得著的話，這種鼓勵「圍威喂」的思考，卻是公民社會的危險敵人。不問情由地分黨派，而不問大家的共同立場，甚麼辯論對社會進步也沒有意義。