The City of Contradictions

Worm's eye views in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

隨拍‧北角碼頭

前北角邨地皮

荒廢多年的前北角邨地皮早前被地產商買下，近日開始動工，幾年後這一帶將面目全非。


北角邨，好像與我擦身而過，連它的模樣都未看清楚，它便消失了。我後悔在它被清拆前沒有將其模樣用相機拍下。

且看胡恩威筆下的北角邨：「香港島東區的北角邨是香港公共房屋的典範，建築設計和整體佈置是現代主義包浩斯﹝Bauhaus﹞式的經典設計」，是人道主義的設計，通風設計加陽光，沒有花巧多餘的裝飾，從功能出發。建築之間設有小廣場，居住單位附加小露台，北角邨的設計促進了一種社區的形成，鄰里的出現，這種設計在新型公共房屋再找不到。……北角邨是香港建築設計史上非常重要的一頁。」﹝摘錄自《香港風格 HONG KONG STYLE》﹞

如今，說得上是北角邨遺跡的可能只餘下這個刻有房委會標誌的渠蓋！

雲裳集 ── 殘缺不全的凱文‧赫摩茲波浪雲

瀏覽電腦裏的舊照片時找到這張：


去年秋季到九州旅行時拍的 ── 2011 年 9 月 24 日上午 9 時 56 分 ── 當時正在鹿兒島開往櫻島的小輪上，開航不久，小輪仍未駛出鹿兒島的防波堤。風吹得很冷，冒著風寒與顛簸，守在船傍取景。天上骯髒的一片灰，泌濾出微黃的陽光。

赫然見到右舷遠方的上空，有一列雲，斷斷續續，間隔有致，看似是一列未完全成形的凱文‧赫摩茲波浪雲﹝Kelvin-Helmholtz wave cloud﹞。

先前沒有放上來，皆因相中的凱文‧赫摩茲波浪雲殘缺不全；如今覺得還是值得放上來與人分享的，縱然那一列凱文‧赫摩茲波浪雲殘缺不全，始終也是比較少見的，況且其殘缺不全正正有其殘缺不全的參考價值。

烏托邦工程的敗筆

烏托邦工程﹝Utopian engineering﹞旨在按照既定的藍圖將整個社會改造。在《歷史定論主義的窮困》﹝The Poverty of Historicism﹞，Karl Popper 提出了獨特的見解，他認為烏托邦工程只是一場「春秋大夢」﹝an Utopian dream﹞，因為烏托邦工程奉行「整體論」﹝holism﹞，而整體論本身已欠妥當：

1. 不著眼於什麼特質令社會成為有組織的個體，卻硬要將社會內的一切視為一個「整體」來看待，如此「全方位」的視角實質上等同沒有視角，陷於空泛和不切實際 ──

There is a fundamental ambiguity in the use of the word 'whole'. [...]It is used to denote (a) the totality of all the properties or aspects of a thing, and especially of all the relations holding between its constituent parts, and (b) certain special properties or aspects of the thing in question, namely those which make it appear an organized structure rather than a 'mere heap'. [...]The fact that wholes in sense (b) can be studied scientifically must therefore not be appealed to in order to justify the entirely different claim that wholes in sense (a) can be so studied. The latter claim must be rejected. If we wish to study a thing, we are bound to select certain aspects of it. It is not possible for us to observe or to describe a whole piece of the world, or a whole piece of nature; in fact, not even the smallest whole piece may be so described, since all description is necessarily selective. It may even be said that wholes in sense (a) can never be the object of any activity, scientific or otherwise. (p.70-71)

2. 對「摸著石頭過河」式的方法﹝piecemeal approach﹞存有偏見，蔑視制度的極限，試圖改變人性﹝「洗腦」？﹞來迎合藍圖中的理想國，削足適履，違背科學原則 ──

   [W]hile the piecemeal engineer can attack his problem with an open mind as to the scope of the reform, the holist cannot do this; for he has decided beforehand that a complete reconstruction is possible and necessary. [...]It prejudices the Utopianist against certain sociological hypotheses which state limits to institutional control; for example, the one expressing the uncertainty due to the personal element, the 'human factor'. By a rejection a priori of such hypotheses, the Utopian approach violates the principles of scientific method. On the other hand, problems connected with the uncertainty of the human factor must force the Utopianist[...]to try to control the human factor by institutional means, and to extend his programme so as to embrace not only the transformation of society, according to plan, but also the transformation of man. [...]For it substitutes for his demand that we build a new society, fit for men and women to live in, the demand that we 'mould' these men and women to fit into his new society. This, clearly, removes any possibility of testing the success or failure of the new society. [...]The holistic approach is incompatible with a truly scientific attritude. (p.63-64)

3. 中央集權無助廣集知識，當權者在欠缺知識的情況下，唯有透過消除人與人之間的分歧﹝傾向極權！﹞，從而將問題簡化；但由於人民自由表達思想的權利被剝奪，結果更不利於當權者拮取知識 ──

The holistic planner overlooks the fact that it is easy to centralize power but impossible to centralize all that knowledge which is distributed over many individual minds, and whose centralization would be necessary for the wise wielding of centralized power. [...]Unable to ascertain what is in the minds of so many individuals, he must try to simplify his problems by eliminating individual differences: he must try to control and stereotype interests and beliefs by education and propaganda. But his attempt to exercise power over minds must destroy the last possibility of finding out what people really think, for it is clearly incompatible with the free expression of thought, especially of critical thought. Ultimately, it must destroy knowledge; and the greater the gain in power, the greater will be the loss of knowledge. (p.83)

可以說，整體論是烏托邦工程的敗筆。

參考資料：

• The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper, Routledge Classics 2002, ISBN 0-415-27846-5

一個秋日下午的淺水灣泳灘

淺水灣泳灘的最大特色，就是穿便服的人往往比穿泳裝的多很多很多很多。

※　　　　　　　　　　※　　　　　　　　　　※
昨天下午去了淺水灣，除了慣常會帶的沙灘蓆與「黑超」，以及其他「必需品」之外，還一時興起，帶同「單反」配了支 PHOTEX 80mm T&S 鏡頭。

經已一年沒來了，上次來的時候是去年 10 月 4 日，當天天色陰暗，還有點涼，灘上人少，目下只有幾名外國人。如今雖已踏進十月，在晴天的下午，暑氣仍在，太陽依然又猛又熱，泳客仍多，昨天正正如是。

乘 63 號新巴來到之後四處走走，隨拍了一會，然後一如既往在沙灘右邊近海的地方攤開了沙灘蓆，脫去了鞋襪和上衣，戴上「黑超」，在陽光中靜坐了大半個小時，不時掏出樽裝綠茶灌兩口，不時舉起單反取取景。為免搭巴士與人擠，未到五時便倉卒離去。離開時，昔日那種如釋重負般的開懷感覺今趟全然不再；也許，我跟本沒有懷着什麼心事而來。











※　　　　　　　　　　※　　　　　　　　　　※
在我二十五歲至三十五歲期間，每當我心情不佳、悶悶不樂，我都會想到來淺水灣散心，除非是在火傘高張的炎夏，否則差不多每兩三個月便來一倘，一來便是大半天，有時是為了看海，有時是為了灑日光，有時是為了聽浪，有時是為了靜躺。起初的幾年，我總喜歡帶同我的 Panasonic SL-S490 與幾張齊豫與陳慧嫻，或六七十年代的舊歌雜錦，邊坐邊聽；之後改了帶書，印象中曾躺於沙灘上某個角落，透過「黑超」的鏡片，看過 Antoine de Saint-Exupéry 的《小王子》、Marguerite Duras 的《情人》、劉以鬯的《對倒》、村上春樹的《世界盡頭與冷酷仙境》，還有張愛玲的《傾城之戀》。

昔日在秋末至夏初的幾個月，這兒是相當寧靜的，尤其在平日不是假期的日子，海灘上通常只有寥寥可數的幾個人，遊人都集中在灘的左邊﹝有雕像的一邊﹞，因為大部分設施都在那邊，而且以前那邊有一間麥當奴，附近還有供遊人燒烤的店。九七回歸之後，多了白鴿，成群的在沙灘上集結。它們有它們咕嚕咕嚕地邊走邊叫，我有我躺在沙灘蓆上體現時間隨浪的旋律而流逝。之後有一段日子，附近有工程進行，聲音嘈雜，我就少來了 …… 。

近年來白鴿少了，卻多了來自國內的遊客，眼見一車一車的旅遊巴在海灘外的停車場外煞停，門一開，一個一個的遊客有如警察機動部隊般不斷操出來，以超高的效率進佔了整個海灘。他們有的在拍照，有的在嬉水，有的三五成群邊聊邊逛，不時以我聽不懂的外省話高談闊論，或大聲發笑；縱然他們驅走了寧靜，總的還算守規矩，至少我沒見過一人一手將海灘抽得煙霧瀰漫的場面。作為一個香港人，見他們歡樂我也感到安慰；海 ── 對於在內陸地方生活的同胞始終是難得一見的。

最令我感到難堪的，還是當我躺在那兒，連上衣也沒穿，突然發覺黑壓壓的人影蔽檔了陽光，回得神來才發覺陣地已被衣冠楚楚的人重重包圍，他們各自修行，或拍照或傾談，我自覺似是一名自慚形穢的路宿者。為免難為情，亦恐防無辜地被攝入鏡頭，我通常會繼續呆躺著，在「黑超」的掩護下邊觀察邊裝睡。

隨拍‧時代廣場

悼南丫島撞船意外罹難者

攝於金紫荊廣場

隨拍‧拆卸中的碼頭

攝於灣仔海傍

續談「自反理論」

昨天提過索羅斯的「自反理論」與「金融煉金術」。「金融煉金術」只是「自反理論」引申出來，應用於金融市場上的操作方法，其用途當然是賺錢。其實「煉金術」的用途不只限於在金融市場賺錢那麼「低檔」的範疇，在政治層面以至市場推廣方面都用得着；而除了引申出「煉金術」，「自反理論」還有更深層次的啟示，否則索羅斯又豈能稱得上是個哲學家。「自反理論」的啟示還包括：

1. 「演繹‧法則模型」﹝Deductive-nomological model﹞ 並不普遍適用於社會科學 ── 否定 Karl Popper 「統一方法」﹝unity of method﹞的想法 ──

The idea that there is a fundamental difference in the subject matter of the natural and social sciences has not been generally recognized. On the contrary, Karl Popper[...]enuciated what he called the "doctrine of the unity of science"; that is, the same methods and criteria apply in both the natural and social sciences. Although it has not been universally accepted, it has not been conclusively refuted either. I shall try to do so here[...]For this purpose I am invoking Karl Popper's scheme of scientific method, described in technical terms as the "deductive-nomological," or "D-N," model[...]An essential conditon [of the model] is that the content of the statements should exist in total isolation from the statements that are made about them[...T]he initial and final conditions should consist of facts which are amendable to scientific observation and the generalizations should have universal validity[...]If thinking is included, the conditions are not amendable to scientific observation, because only the effects of the participants' thinking can be observed, not the process itself. If the thinking process is excluded and only its effects are admitted as evidence, the universal validity of scientific generalizations is destroyed because a given set of conditions is not necessarily preceded or succeeded by the same set every time[...]In either cases, the D-N model breaks down. (p.35-37)

2. 否定經濟學理論的「理性行為」假設 ── 經濟學是空中樓閣 ──

Economics seeks to be a science. Science is supposed to be objective and it is difficult to be scientific when the subject matter, the participant in the economic process, lacks objectivity. [...]Economic theory tries to sidestep the issue by introducing the assumption of rational behavior. People are assumed to act by choosing the best of available alternatives, but somehow the distinction between perceived alternatives and facts is assumed away. The result is a theoretical construction of great elegance that resembles natural science but does not resemble reality. (p.11-12)

3. 市場不會趨向平衡，藉市場分配資源的做法並非最佳 ── 放任﹝laissez faire﹞政策不可取，市場須要適度監控 ──

[F]inancial markets as well as macro-economic developments[...]exhibit no tendency towards equilibrium. [...M]arkets tend towards excesses, which sooner or later become unsustainable, so that they are eventually corrected. Equilibrium is supposed to ensure the optimum allocation of resources. If markets do not tend towards equilibrium, the main argument that has been used in favor of the market mechanism loses its validity: we have no grounds for believing that markets optimize anything. (p.317)

索羅斯認為市場須要適度監控，但他不贊同計劃經濟 。雖然市場未盡完美，但他認為總較沒有市場好 ──

[C]entrally planned economies which, in revulsion against the deficiencies of market economies, have eschewed the use of the pricing mechanism. Output has to be measured in physical quantities, and the distortions are far worse than the excesses of the market. [...M]arket mechanism[...]is the worst system of allocating resources except for all the others. (p.318)

至於監控何謂適度，則取決於對不穩定的可接受程度，視乎判斷而定 ──

The prevention of excessive instability is[...]a necessary condition for the smooth functioning of the market mechanism. [...]How much instability is excessive is a matter of juidgment. [...]The sooner we recognize that some kind of regulation is necessary in order to maintain stability, the better our chances of preserving the benefits of a nearly free market system. (p.322-323)

4. 社會的政治模式在極權與自由之間擺動，難以達到平衡點 ──

Each form of social organization was found wanting in something that could be found only in its opposite: totalitarian society lacked freedom; Open Society lacked stability. But given our innate bias, a stable equilibrium between the two is just as unlikely to be attained as a stable equilibrium in a free market. Sentiment is likely to swing in one direction or the other. (p.323)

參考資料：

• The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the Mind of the Market, George Soros, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-04206-4

隨拍‧數碼港

10 月 1 日國慶假期，下午專程到數碼港的戲院看《閃亮人生》。開場前在海濱閒逛了一會，隨拍了一番。這裏有一片青蔥草地，開放給人活動，更難得的是不將狗隻拒於門外。













※　　　　　　　　　　※　　　　　　　　　　※
當晚回家看電視新聞，驚聞南丫島對開海面發生撞船，一艘船沉沒，百多人墮海 …… 。

「自反理論」與「金融煉金術」

索羅斯﹝George Soros﹞是舉世知名的「大炒家」；然而，看過他的著作《金融煉金術》﹝The Alchemy of Finance﹞之後，才意識到他可稱得上是個「哲學家」。他提出「自反理論」﹝The Theory of Reflexivity﹞，並以金融市場為實驗室，以價格走勢來測試他的理論 ──

[I]t is possible to see financial markets as a laboratory for testing hypotheses, albeit not strictly scientific ones. (p.14)

「自反理論」並非狹義的技術分析或基本分析理論，而是更為廣義的哲學或社會學理論。雖然 Popper 早已意會到 Oedipus effect ── 亦即「自我應驗預言」﹝self-fulfilling prophecy﹞ 或「自我失效預言」﹝self-defeating prophecy﹞ ── 會令社會事件難以預測，但他仍深信存在同樣適用於描述自然科學與社會科學發展的「統一方法」﹝unity of method﹞。索羅斯不贊同 Karl Popper 的想法 ，他有見社會事件會涉及人，人的感知便會影響事態，事態又會反過來影響人的感知，而往往人的感知又存有偏見，導致問題 ──

I was greatly influenced at the time by Karl Popper's ideas on scientific method. I accepted most of his views, with one major exception. He argued in favour of what he called 'unity of method' ── that is, the methods and criteria that apply to the study of natural phenomena also apply to the study of social events. I felt that there was a fundamental difference between the two: the events studied by the social sciences have thinking participants; natural phenomena do not. The participants' thinking creates problems that have no counterpart in natural science. (p.11-12)

When events have thinking participants, the subject matter is no longer confined to facts but also includes the participants' perceptions. The chain of causation does not lead directly from fact to fact but from fact to perception and from perception to fact. This would not create any insuperable difficulties if there were some kind of correspondence or equivalence between facts and perceptions. Unfortunately, that is impossible because the participants' perceptions do not relate to facts, but to a situation that is contingent on their own perceptions and therefore cannot be treated as fact. (p.12)

I believed that the participants' bias is the key to an understanding of all historical processes that have thinking participants. (p.16)

他將人的感知與事態的雙向反饋﹝double feedback mechanism﹞稱為「自反作用」﹝reflexivity﹞： 而所謂的問題就是事態偏離平衡點及變得不穩定，即是從偏離平衡點的一方突然倒向另一方，且無法預測。

套用到金融市場，「不穩定」就是 boom and bust。索羅斯悟出：要在金融市場穩操勝券，須準確預期人對世事普遍會有什麼期望，而非真實世界會有什麼發生。他將此類操作稱為「煉金術」﹝alchemy﹞──

Scientific method seeks to understand things as they are, while alchemy seeks to bring about a desired state of affairs. To put it another way, the primary objective of science is the truth ── that of alchemy, operational success. In the sphere of natural phenomena, there is no distinction between the two objectives. Nature obeys laws that operate independently of whether they are understood or not; the only way man can bend nature to his will is by understanding and applying these laws. [...]But social phenomena are different: they have thinking participants. Events do not obey laws that operate independently of what anybody thinks. On the contrary, the participants' thinking is an integral part of the subject matter. This creates an opening for alchemy that was absent in the sphere of natural science. Operational success can be achieved without attaining scientific knowledge. By the same token, scientific method is rendered just as ineffectual in dealing with social events as alchemy was in altering the character of natural substances. [...]Financial success depends on the ability to anticipate prevailing expectations and not real-world developments. [...]Market prices always express a prevailing bias, whereas natural science works with an objective criterion. Scientific theories are judged by the facts; financial decisions are judged by the distorted views of the participants. Instead of scientific method, financial markets embody the method of alchemy. (p.303-304)

或許你會認為索羅斯的「煉金術」與凱恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的「鬥傻理論」﹝bigger fool theory﹞無異；在細節上，「煉金術」的重點在於識別可助長雙向反饋的條件，以股票市場為例，若然投資者的偏見不單令股價偏離合理值，且還影響到基本因素﹝例如因公司持有的股份價格上升而獲利、市值上升而有利拼購等﹞的話， boom/bust 就很可能會出現。更甚者，「煉金術司」還可施展「煉金術」，主動影響市場及其他投資者的感知，點石成金。

參考資料：

• The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the Mind of the Market, George Soros, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-04206-4
• The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper, Routledge Classics 2002, ISBN 0-415-27846-5

歷史定論主義的窮困

以「爬」的速度看完 Karl Popper 的著作 The Poverty of Historicism﹝《歷史定論主義的窮困》﹞，薄薄的 149 頁，我看了整整一個月，還只是很粗略地看，理解到的只有點滴；但得著仍是相當多。

在書中，Popper 所謂的 'historicism' ﹝歷史定論主義﹞是指「試圖藉找出歷史發展的趨勢或韻律，從而預測未來社會發展」的一門社會科學 ──

An approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the 'rhythms' or the 'patterns', the 'laws' or the 'trends' that underlie the evolution of history. (p.3)

Popper 以邏輯反駁歷史定論主義 ──

1. The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge[...]
2. We cannot predict, by rational or scientific methods, the future growth of our scientific knowledge[...]
3. We cannot, therefore, predict the future course of human history[...]
4. [...]There can be no scientific theory of historical development serving as a basis for historical prediction.
5. The fundamental aim of historicist methods is therefore misconceived; and historicism collapses.
(p.xii)

── ，指出歷史定論主義者錯誤地將趨勢﹝trends﹞當成全稱定律﹝universal laws﹞ ──

[T]he existence of trends or tendencies in social change can hardly be questioned. [...]But trends are not laws. A statement asserting the existence of a trend is existential, not universal. [...]And a statement asserting the existence of a trend at a certain time and place would be a singular historical statement, not a universal law. [...]while we may base scientific predictions on laws, we cannot[...]base them merely on the existence of trends. A trend[...]which has persisted for hundreds or even thousands of years may change within a decade, or even more rapidly than that. [...L]aws and trends are radically different things. (p.106)

Explained trends do exists, but their persistence depends on the persistence of certain specific initial conditions (which in turn may sometimes be trends)[...H]istoricists overlook the dependence of trends on initial conditions[...]Their confusion of laws with trends makes them believe in trends which are unconditional (and therefore general)[...](p.118)

── 及將歷史詮釋﹝historical interpretation﹞誤當成理論﹝theory﹞ ──

For in theoretical science laws act, amongst other things, as centres of interest to which observations are related. [...]In history the universal laws[...]cannot possibly fulfil this function. It must be taken over by something else. For undoubtedly there can be no history without a point of view; like the natural sciences, history must be selective[...] (p.138-139)

The only way out[...]is[...]consciously to introduce a preconceived selective point of view into one's history[...A]ll available evidence which has a bearing on our point of view should be considered carefully and objectively. (p.139)

We shall call such a selective point of view[...]a historical interpretation. (p.139-140)

Historicism mistakes these interpretations for theories[...They] do not see that there is necessarily a plurality of interpretations which are fundamentally on the same level of both suggestiveness and arbitrariness. [...]Instead, they present them as doctrines or theories[...] (p.140)

── ，並對歷史定論主義﹝尤其是馬克斯主義﹞，以及「烏托邦工程」﹝Utopian engineering﹞作出猛烈評擊，指烏托邦工程只是一場「春秋大夢」﹝an Utopian dream﹞。

在書中﹝§32﹞，Popper 提出 Institutional Theory of Progress ﹝發展的制度理論﹞，否定科學的客觀性並非單純依靠科學家持「客觀」的態度﹝因為態度是個人及內在的，既無法量度，亦難以在人與人之間作比較，根本無「客觀」可言﹞。Popper 認為科學的客觀性某程度上是基於社會制度﹝what is usually called 'scientific objectivity' is based, to some extent, on social institutions﹞，因為科學﹝及其客觀性﹞是建基於思想的自由競爭﹝free competition of thought﹞，須要民主的政治制度來維護 ──

Scientific method itself has social aspects. Science, and more especially scientific progress, are the results not of isolated efforts but free competition of thought. For science needs ever more competition between hypotheses and ever more rigorous tests. And the competing hypotheses need personal representation... This personal representation must be institutionally organized if we wish to ensure that it works. And these institutions have to be paid for, and protected by law. Ultimately, progress depends very largely on political factors; on political institutions that safeguard the freedom of thought: on democracy. (p.143)

If the growth of reason is to continue, and human rationality to survive, then the diversity of individuals and their opinions, aims, and purposes must never be interfered with. [...]Even the emotionally satisfying appealing for a common purpose, however excellent, is an appeal to abandon all rival moral opinions and the cross-criticisms and arguments to which they give rise. It is an appeal to abandon rational thought. (p.147)

Holistic control, which must lead to the equalization not of human rights but of human minds, would mean the end of progress. (p.147)

要知《歷史定論主義的窮困》的初稿在 1935 年完成，而 Popper 早在 1919-20 年已意識到歷史是不可預測的 ──

The fundamental thesis of this book ── that the belief in historical destiny is sheer superstition, and that there can be no prediction of the course of human history by scientific or any other rational methods ── goes back to thewinter of 1919-1920. The main outline was completed by 1935; it was first read, in January or February 1936, as a paper entitled 'The Poverty of Historicis'[...](Historical Note)

── ；那個時期正值俄國十月革命﹝1917﹞之後、第二次世界大戰爆發﹝1939﹞之前，共產主義的種子正在散播，當時世上不少人對「烏托邦工程」﹝Utopian engineering﹞奉若神明。

參考資料：

• The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper, Routledge Classics 2002, ISBN 0-415-27846-5