近年馬來西亞出現了一些金錢遊戲(money game) 的項目,其中一个叫“解救普通人”(JJPTR),最近有些問題上報。网上搜了一下:“JJPTR 使命 – 解救普通人 – 让所有人都有机会投资,增加收入,改变生活”;“ 懂得投资理财才能以钱生钱, 让钱为你工作。”;“解救普通人 将会成为第一个事业让穷人翻身的机会”。

如果真的是騙局,或許不能完全責怪上當的人貪心:現在頂層也是追逐錢生錢,底層如果只是靠工掙錢距離越來越遠。更糟的是儲蓄進銀行的利息越來越低,各政府印不少熱錢。


Not everyone is good in money game.

You might think, “Of course, why must everyone be good in money game? Some people are good in money multiplication; some people are good in arts; some people are good in sports… Isn’t it normal?”

不是每一个人擅長投資養老,否則被坑走辛辛苦苦儲蓄而來的血汗錢變得更窮更不足夠養老。看到香港的廣告:“老有所依全靠妥善理財”。老實說,一般德國人的理財能力應該比不上香港人,樓市股市樣樣熟,但老的時候德國普通人應該比香港普通人好。何解?


各政府印不少熱錢,有些人擅長以钱生钱掙得更多份額、有些人擅長藝道、有些人擅長運動…… 多數人在以钱生钱方面是普通人,這不是常態嗎?


如何解救普通人?


爲什麼普通人需要解救?這説明社會有什麼問題?

社(community) 在哪裏?

所謂國“家”。


2017年3月,蔡英文指示、行政院長林全宣布擴大台灣基礎建設投資構想,由台灣各縣市政府提出計畫,行政院于同年4月5日核定通過「前瞻基礎建設計畫」,特別是“綠色軌道建設……綠能基礎建設、水資源基礎建設”(維基百科)。


看看計劃内容,因應氣候變遷的水環境建設从原編中央公務的新台幣4.02億元增至後續年度經費新台幣146.58億元,促進環境永續的綠能建設則从12.80億元增至每年27.93億元。


政府終于投入不少真金白銀來建設水環境、綠能了!長期呼籲的民間環境組織應該感到高興、支持、叫好、準備幫助政府實施、促進民間學習以達到事半功倍的成果吧?最多不就是以過去的經驗知識積累指出細節不足的地方,讓計劃變得更完善。


然而,納悶的,大多數環境組織、學者、產業代表都不看好這項30年的大計,莫說支持。

未施先挫。


在位的,怎麼了?


#“有感建設”

看到香港2030+的討論,讓我想起台灣不知有沒有類似的愿景和長程規劃。


目前找到的有“台灣願景2020”,嘗試建構共同愿景(shared vision building),可惜网站已經關了,剩下一些痕跡
[PDF]公告一[PDF]公告二線上活動

討論願景有做一些背景研究如人口社會結構:

[PDF]

還出了


還有一個“台灣願景2050”的背景資料豐富,由企業永續發展協會提出。它辦了種子訓練營工作坊。但“國家經濟成長名列全球前十名,台灣成為永續的國際經濟強國”(和別人比較)是你的愿景嗎?人口方面比較關注生育率而不是整體的數量和人口分佈,教育方面似乎在意國際競爭力勝于教學資源分佈。


台灣的愿景是什麼?


延伸閲讀:其他關于愿景的舊文


Quote from John Forester’s “The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes”:


To begin to explore the deliberative aspects of planning and design practise, listen first to the story of Arie Rahamimoff, an architect-planner born in Bulgaria, trained in Israel and Finland, having taught in the United States (at Harvard and the University of New Mexico) and in Germany as well. Rahamimoff tells us about historic preservation and economic development, about tourism and social policy, about professional blinders and consensus building all at once. We can consider his story in his own words, but in several parts. This historic port city of Akko in Isreal lies just north of and across the bay from Haifa, less than an hour’s drive south of the Lebanese borders, with Nazareth a half-hour’s drive to the east. The walled Old City is a predominantly Arab section of the larger modern city of Akko that has developed around it.

Rahamimoff described first the physical and social setting:

The project I’m working on in Akko is an exciting one. We have to deal with an entire city, a walled Old City … a coastal city, and a city that has several layers, the most significant … dating from the periods of the Crusaders and the Ottomans.

Imagine! All the kings of Europe come to Jerusalem to conquer the Holy Land. For two years they rode to the Mediterranean, to the Middle East … with the vision that this part of the world should be Christian. And they build Akko as the port, as a starting point, like a springboard into the Holy Land. So actually you get a transmission of culture here from Europe into the Middle East.

You have here the meeting place between the universal culture, expressed by the Crusaders, bringing the Romanesque and early Gothic architecture into the Middle East, and on the other hand, you have local vernacular. This is a wonderful meeting place.

At the same time there is another dimension to this, and that’s the local population: People who have been living here, or trying to make their living out of the sea or out of crafts, out of traditions.

And then there is another dimension, too, tourism, which is very interesting for me: the meeting between the local population and tourism. This is one of the major phenomena of modern life: We want tourism, but we don’t want to change our way of life.

What we’re trying to do is to understand the city in its many layers. It’s a very complex situation, because you have to deal not only with 12th and 13th century stones, but you have to deal with people’s hopes and expectations, and their poor conditions of living and unemployment.

Now, for many years, the government policy was that this should be just for tourism. It’s a wonderful tourist site. But we felt that tourism cannot—and should not—be disconnected from the local population. So we’ve had to understand how we could actually articulate that….

The concept for many years was to develop tourism just along the water line of the Old City, because tourists are interested in the water…. But the few thousands of people living there, were of little interest to the people … dealing with tourism, who said, “Let us deal with tourism, and they can do what they want! Or maybe nothing will happen and the city will deteriorate further….”

We thought that there’s no way to supply tourist services if you don’t deal with the entire complexity of the Old City. For example, the educational system outside the Old City is much better than inside it. So we had to understand the needs of this population, in terms of kindergartens, nurseries, day care centers and services for the elderly people, and this is what actually we’re working on….

Now, it took a long time, a great part of my efforts, to convince the government that you can’t have tourists if you don’t deal with the entire population, and with the real needs of these populations. I’ll give you an example.

I walked here, on one of my first visits to the harbor, and there was a fisherman drying his nets in this caravanserai, this courtyard where the caravans rested. There was a group of tourists walking around, and they walked on top of his nets. I thought that this was an expression, a brutal expression, of alienation. They may be going to the restaurant to eat his fish, but they didn’t see the person, he was transparent. They just walked right on his nets, and then they went to the restaurant to get fish. And I felt he was being alienated, he was not treated as a human being, but was kept as someone who provided services, that’s all. I thought that we had to respond to that.

…There is no high school here that meets the national standard, so we are locating the main school (and this is now approved!) right at the northern boundary—so that the population from the Old City and the population from the new city can really meet at the walls…. This is a social concept that responds to the structure of the Old City.

Setting out that context, Rahamimoff next described the planning and design process:


So … we had to convince the government to see the Old City as an entity. To do that, first of all we had to make it clear that there are no “tourist-only” services: there is no pavement for tourists which is separate from the pavements for the residents; there is no infrastructure just for the tourists, and no infrastructure just for the residents. We have to see the holistic qualities of the city.

They said in the beginning, “We only have money for the outer edge, for the waterfront, for tourism, and not enough for the inside of the city.” But we said that this would be like giving headache pills to a patient who may have cancer. Because the problem is real: There is no infrastructure—the infrastructure has not been taken care of for a few hundred years. So you have to supply infrastructure for all of the Old City.

It took awhile to explain this! Now the government is in full agreement with this concept, and we’re getting good money to restructure the infrastructure of the whole city—but this took not one meeting, but maybe two hundred meetings.

What happens when we meet with them? I have, I think, half a square kilometer of drawings, and they’re presented, and we have a series of discussions, and I think it makes sense, because we don’t have another alternative.

There is no other alternative: you can’t really have hotels here near the water when there’s unemployment, drugs, poor infrastructure fifty meters away from you. You won’t succeed with the hotel. Now, the alternative is to build hotels further down the coast, but then nobody will be able to walk here at the edge of Old City. We thought this would be disintegrating the space, the whole city and the whole region.

I think our discussions on the whole project created a different climate, a different understanding of the potentials of the Old City of Akko. With Akko on the Mediterranean, you can approach it by land, from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and Nazareth, but you can also approach it from Turkey, from Greece, or from France, as it was historically. So there are different dimensions to the city. We’re interested in all these dimensions, and … there’s a physical expression to urban form that responds to the origins of the city,… which was built by the Crusaders in the 12th century, but … also built by the Phoenicians who came from the north before the time of the Christ. It was built by early Israelites, and the Egyptians posted people here, too. We’ve calculated 8 or 10 major layers.

A colleague, Raphaël Fischler, and I then asked Rahamimoff about the demands of such works: “What does it take with an architectural background to keep working relationships with the governments, the local population, and the municipality, to work effectively? What do you need to bring into play in addition to your architectural training?”

He replied in a way that surprised us:

Basically we have to deal with consensus-building: what we’re actually trying to achieve is a broader understanding of how things should be done. We’re trying to utilize our resources in such a way that we achieve a consensus so we can utilize it.

For example, the Antiquities Authority is getting money from the government for archaeological excavations here. In many cases the archaeologists are interested in finding out what was in the past—it’s exciting, especially in a place like this, because every day you find all the “goodies” in the ground: they have unearthed unbelievable findings here, unearthed and also un-watered, because in the harbor here, there are about 28 archaeological sites under water. There are docks, and there are sunken boats, and there is the lighthouse—very exciting things….

But in most cases archaeologists are not interested in tourism. They’ll tell you: “We have a plan to work here for a hundred years, so please come back in a hundred years, and we’ll hand it over to you, so you can do what ever tourism you want.”

Now, I’m exaggerating, because actually I’m very lucky to work with people like … the chief architect for preservation here, and he’s very interested in Akko, and we’re trying to find a way that we could utilize the archaeological findings to expose them in a controlled way to tourists, and to improve the economic basis of this population. Because if you have some sources of income, for example, for the local population that is interested in archaeology, in preservation, being tourist guides, dealing with the economic activities around tourism, it can work out very nicely.

Here we asked, “But how do you, as the consulting team leader, work between the antiquities people, the tourism people, and the local people to try to build this consensus?” He explained:


This isn’t a hocus pocus situation, it’s a process. I mean it’s not a miracle making thing. It’s a process of trying to understand the needs, trying to understand the opportunities, and trying to understand the red lines of each discipline, what’s a taboo, what cannot be done, what they will not accept. There are few things that the archaeologist will not accept, there are other things that the local population will not accept, there are a few things that the tourist people and the municipality insist on as essentially important for them, and I’m interested in trying to understand each part of this complex matrix of interests.

This is something which is going on. For one thing, we have to build the confidence of the local population, that we mean work. We have to build the confidence of … the holding agency for the government: that economically by joining resources this will be good for everybody, that one plus one is more than two. Again, this is a synergistic concept. If you do something which is good for many of the components of the matrix, it would create a richer whole and a more meaningful entity that has a better economic base. So this is what I’m trying to do, step by step, one meeting at a time.

Rahamimoff finally summed up this kind of consensus building:


In this process, with the municipality, the tourism people, the antiquities staff, we’re learning from each other. And this finally gets expressed in a scheme. But you have to share this process with other people, there’s no other way. You’re learning from other people, and hopefully they learn from you, and then you build a consensus, an agreement, an understanding of how things should work out. This is difficult to describe; it’s a dynamic situation. It’s not that you have understood what everybody wants and you bring it all into a coherent scheme, but the whole situation’s changing all the time. When we presented our scheme, everybody was invited, and 70 people came to a meeting, local residents, and they had never seen a plan before.

The schemes were alienating the population, when we presented them. So there is a great amount of distrust, and you have to show your plan and hear comments and keep your eyes open and your ears open and be ready to make a change because you heard something that made sense. This is the process of building a broader consensus which is even more exciting and even more complex, and, I think, it requires changing the plan again, which I think is O.K. And if you’re ready to do it, because you think it will be a better plan, then your client will also be ready to do it.

I listen, and I try to speak in more depth with some of the people that had some ideas, and I have to check it with my client, and that’s how you build confidence. You show that you are listening and that you are ready to change your plans. We’re ready to try and convince the authorities that there’s a point there. This is all happening now so I can’t show you yet how it has worked out. But this is what I have been doing for the past year.



Listening in deliberation is crucial but insufficient, for if listening does not lead to subsequent action, to the possibility that what is heard can actually make a difference, then such listening becomes merely condescension, wasting or manipulating others’ time, an act less of taking the other seriously than of insulting them by failing to respond to their deeply felt concerns.

Rahamimoff suggests the moral challenges of deliberation here. Listening to the criticisms and ideas of affected people implies the potential recognition of new concerns, the re-recognition and re-thinking of value, strategies, consequences, and implications. But all this is done “contingently,” without guarantees, as matters of effort and direction: “We’re ready to try and convince the authorities that there’s a point there. This is all happening now so I can’t show you yet how it has worked out. But this is what I have been doing for the past year.”


看了特朗普(Donald Trump),會不會覺得選舉只是娛人的鬧劇?


那假設沒有選舉。

如果沒有選舉,共和黨頂層會留意到底層的變化嗎?



…These policies [such as free trade] were justified by the notion that the entire country would win, because the winners will win more than the losers lose.

Yet this is contingent on the winners sharing, and the Republicans have no interest in making the winners share.


來源


如果沒有選舉,有多少人會反思?深刻地反思?

如果沒有選舉,我們怎麼知道有問題?怎麼知道問題嚴重的程度?

如果沒有選舉,我會寫這些文章?你會看這篇文章嗎?

人孰无過。如果沒有選舉,我們怎麼知道“過”了?


新加坡有選舉。

日本有選舉。

俄羅斯有選舉。

俄羅斯有共產黨,是俄羅斯最大的在野黨。

柬埔寨沒有共產黨,人民黨放棄馬列主義。

朝鮮將來有共產黨嗎?


漫長的初選把問題一道道攤出來談。

如果能夠反思,及時改,猶未晚也。

越早知道問題越好。

怎樣早知道?怎樣提早得到反饋(quick feedbacks)?怎樣設計速糾機制(quick feedback loops)?

上街?上訪?上路(走)?


那菲律賓也有選舉啊?聽説小馬可斯(Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.)无需任何道歉就回來了?

選舉只是其中一個反饋,不是万靈丹。

有選舉不一定民主,民“主”。
政治人物追求選票,超級富豪追求鈔票(包括你以个人將來換來的貸款),如果不好好利用,忠心專一,有選舉又怎樣呢?有市場又怎樣呢?顧客是老闆還是老襯(老蠢)?
左右逢源

你是要一直尋找一顆万靈丹,還是設計各種反饋?

你是要大起大落,還是小福波動?

共和黨和共產黨哪一個可能持續比較久?


選舉只是娛人的鬧劇?

那爲什麼娛人的《超級女聲》又回來了?


延伸閲讀:《超級女聲》版權爲何能返銷海外?


經濟和政治結構的轉型難免有陣痛,怎樣讓大家一起承擔轉型的陣痛?


愿景(vision) ,共同的愿景,大家一起建構的共同愿景。

愿景最忌就是從上到下(top-down)——如果大家不覺得愿景是他的(ownership),大家不會愿意一起承擔轉型的陣苦。

多聽,少命令,少指示。那可使原本可以成功的共同愿景建構過程(shared vision building)變成又一類形式。

要大家敢講出來,核心的人扮演重要的角色。

否則大家有意見不在檯面講出來,而是臺下用腳走路(離去)。


難不難?


Donella H. ‘Dana’ Meadows' “Down To Earth” speech at the International Society for Ecological Economics conference held during October 1994
(圖片來源:英語錄影


成爲神需要出家?成爲神需要絕情絕慾?成爲神需要不食人間煙火?


吉隆坡的開發先驅葉亞來進了仙四師爺廟,類似的地方神祇在馬來西亞也不鮮見。鄭成功的廟臺灣到處都可以看得到,香港的車公是宋帝昺的神醫大元帥,三寶太監在國際間也有不少廟。謝安成神,李冰成了川主、二郎神,在安史之亂裏守一城而捍天下的張巡成了神。韓愈被潮州人奉爲神,“在蘇軾行跡所到之處都被民眾紀念,如黃岡、杭州、海南島等地區,都有蘇軾的祠廟。”端午節喫粽子、賽龍舟和屈原、伍子胥有關。

關羽成了黑白兩道的神、包拯成神、孫思邈成了醫神、黃道婆成了紡織神、魯班廟遍佈中華文化地區、陸羽寫《茶經》成了茶神、蔡倫被紙業供奉……由于合法化妓業,管仲成了妓女的保護神


爲什麼?

也許可以從城隍尊神找到答案:


民間信仰中城隍是由死去的名人或者有功勞者擔任的,並必須是公正無私者
……
傳說中城隍爺與地方官是分陰陽二世界來治理事情,所以過去,新上任的地方官員,一定先到城隍廟向城隍爺祭拜,請求城隍爺一起協助地方政治事務


傳到馬來西亞,林金豬被封爲城隍爺, 因爲德高望重者有機會死後成神

原來,爲地方、行業貢獻良多的人,都有機會被大眾供奉,成爲神。人人皆可成神,各行各業都可以成爲神。都有人拜馬云了!

如果以前作惡多端,悔改也有機會

拜馬云
(圖片來源:光明网)


不只是道教,加爾各答的德蕾莎(Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, commonly known as Mother Teresa)不是也成了天主教的聖(Saint)嗎?不少文化都有守護神。

要成爲菩薩都要解救眾生于苦難。

法國的先賢祠其實是Panthéon(萬神廟)。

華盛頓(George Washington)也成了神

廣義來看,亞當•斯密(Adam Smith)成了經濟學家的神,馬克思(Karl Marx)成了共產主義者的神,海耶克(Friedrich Hayek)成了自由主義者的神,喬布斯(Steve Jobs)成了一些人的神……


貢獻的地方越廣,貢獻的行業越多,貢獻越大,越有機會被大眾供奉成神,越可持續爲神。好像孫臏被制靴、製鞋業、皮革業、燒炭業、豆腐業和泥塑業尊爲祖神,即使制靴、燒炭業沒落了,還有其他行業繼續拜他。如果吉隆坡沒落了,就越來越少人知道葉亞來,更不用談拜他了。

可持續的神?

是的,神也需要人來拜。如果人類滅亡了,神就消失了,除非連外星人也來拜。神的地位可以起起跌跌,全靠後世人的評價,孔子的地位二十世紀以來大落大起就是一個例子。毛主席的地位還有待考驗。

因此,馬云現在就被人拜可能還太早了點,以後能不能持續被更多人拜就要看他的所作所爲。造福更多的地方,造福更多的行業,積善越大,神位越穩。


所以,要成爲神?多做好事,造福更多人。

神州多神,眾神保佑;神州无神,自求多福。


不認錯,怎麼會道歉?不認錯,怎麼會反省?不反省,怎麼會改變?


這是一個心理問題,可以是个人的心理問題,可以是家族的心理問題,可以是文化的心理問題。

Without confession, love is destroyed.

It is impossible to imagine a vital marriage or deep friendship without confession and forgiveness. If you have done something that damages a relationship, confession is essential to its restoration. For the sake of that bond, you confess what you’ve done, you apologize, and you promise not to do it again.


來源一
來源二

The primary reason, however, why the Catholic Church asks her members to confess their sins to a priest is simply because the Church has always believed that sin, however private, is a community affair. Every sin, however small, wounds the Body of Christ, the members of the Church. . . . When any of its members sin, they all suffer. Moreover, because my sins wound the community and diminish its effectiveness, reconciliation must include the community and not just God.


來源


亞伯拉罕諸教有認錯的傳統(英文維基百科)。即使是這樣,認錯還是不容易的。德國經歷了嚴重的第一世界大戰,還要經歷近毀滅的第二世界大戰纔開始反省。日本只經歷第二世界大戰,雖然有相當震撼的原子彈,但可能還不足夠讓他們反省、不重蹈覆轍。


那,爲什麼認錯那麼難?


我猜想這和自我意像(self-image)、自尊(self-esteem)、自我觀念(conceptions of self)、自我建構(英文維基百科)的認知失調有關繫。由于我對心理學不是太在行,最好還是讓心理學家來解答。


特別是對于有集體(embeddedness)傾向的文化,自我觀念的建構是通過與他人的關係(英文維基百科)和比較(英文維基百科),認錯的影響更大。所謂的“面子”和文化的集體傾向和等級傾向有關繫。而社會認同(英文維基百科)可以讓我們比較容易向同一社會的成員認錯。


這也許可以解釋何解德國人比日本人容易認錯,而日本人又比中國人容易認錯——日本人認錯下臺屢見不鮮,除了天皇以外,日本人是可以向其他日本人認錯的。日本人民族意識比較強,中國人即使同一家裏父親做小錯事也不容易向家人認錯,更何況是非家人等級比較低的人。但要日本人向其他人認錯就不是那麼容易,爲二戰道歉等于近似神的天皇要道歉,這對日本人自我觀念的影響相當大。


鼓勵認錯文化可幫助減少文化的等級傾向,沒有那麼集權,大家不需要一直期待像神一樣的強人來打救我們。人非聖神,孰能无過?錯,過也。“錯了,改正”就像是“過了,調整”,平常得很。放下屠刀,立地成佛。


改過,自新。


你覺得同文同種的超級富豪比較可以親得來,還是不同文化但同階層的比較可以親得來?

也許你會答:當然是超級富豪啦!爹親娘親不如財神爺親。

那你覺得同文同種的重債窮鬼比較親還是不同文化但同階層的人比較親?

你會給你的女兒嫁給同文同種的重債窮鬼?還是不同文化但同階層的人士?

你會給你的女兒嫁給同文同種的重債窮鬼還是異文異種的超級富豪?


會問這些問題是因爲受到這篇文章底下的評論啓發:當熱錢流進的時候,頂層(oligarch, merchant bankers)得益最多,多多益善;但是當熱錢流出的時候全國都要捱苦,甚至底層 (main street)承受的痛苦比頂層还大,而頂層把一切怪罪于外國。

這讓我聯想到如果頂層一直搞不好經濟,可能就想轉移視線,對外戰爭,最終遭殃的大部份還是底層——本國和外國的底層。本國和外國的頂層其實在熱錢流動裏得益最豐。接着我不禁想:如果雙雙的底層接觸後得知被墊屍底(“不仁之君,窮兵黷武,將人民視如草芥,任意蹂躪生死”),回國推翻頂層(有點類似俄羅斯和德國在一戰時),那麼頂層和頂層會不會反過來合作鎮壓底層造反呢?

這使我想到可以粗略地把一個社會分爲頂層(所謂的“精英”、“1%”)和底層(所謂的“蟻民”、“99%”),而兩個社會的頂層和底層互動可以不一樣。我們通常設想的國與國的互動(如甲圖)只是其中一類。尤其是如果國與國不接壤,國與國的互動主要是靠頂層與頂層的互動,底層與底層不容易接觸。頂層代表整個國家與別國交往,底層仰賴頂層照顧自己的福祉。只是如果頂層只顧着自己的利益,底層能夠做什麼?

甲圖
甲圖


“全世界无產者,聯合起來!”這是馬克思的答案,如乙圖所示,底層和底層合作對頂層(頂層不一定要合作)。

乙圖
乙圖


只是共產主義成功嗎?何解?
第一國際、第二國際、第三國際、第四第五國際……
整個底層和整個底層聯合起來?還是只是底層的頂層和底層的頂層權宜合作?
遇到考驗(如國與國的戰爭),如果國的頂層和底層距離不太大,愛層還是愛國?
爲什麼共產世界内部會有戰爭?爲什麼執政的共產黨向另一個執政的共產黨發動戰爭?
底層的頂層與底層的頂層合作,還是民間組織和民間組織合作?

古代社會與社會之間交往不深,底層與底層接觸不多,也不需要團結起來纔能夠對頂層,直到國際貿易、全球化,全球的頂層影響全球,底層和底層的合作也許是必要的了。特別是,全球化對頂層跟底層的影響不一定一樣。
頂層全球化

現在看來,隨着全球頂層跟底層的距離越來越大,開始出現兩個方向:一是底層起來反抗,如柯爾賓(Jeremy Corbyn)、桑德斯(Bernard Sanders),走的是乙圖方向(所謂的“左”);一是種族民族主義,如特朗普(Donald Trump)、勒龐(Le Pen),走的是甲圖方向(所謂的“右”)。

向左走?向右走?
交稅,還是國族保護主義?
全球頂層現在很頭痛。

英國脫歐,英國底層有什麼壞處?
英國不脫歐,英國底層有什麼好處?
英國脫歐,歐洲底層有什麼壞處?
英國不脫歐,歐洲底層有什麼好處?

關于太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協議(TPP)的問題:
簽了底層有什麼好處?
簽了頂層有什麼好處?
不簽底層有什麼壞處?
不簽頂層有什麼壞處?
值得注意的是,協議的制定底層沒有得到參與。


同是全球淪落人,相憐何必同文種?
全球底層人的生活比較親還是同文同種的人比較親?
試問希臘底層人:難民比較親還是希臘大富豪比較親?
試問德國底層人:難民比較親還是德國大富豪比較親?
試問日本底層人:難民比較親還是日本大富豪比較親?
試問墨西哥底層人:難民比較親還是墨西哥大富豪比較親?

如果根據「不過就好」的原則,這看情況(it depends)。 如果財富分佈不懸殊,如北歐,同文同種還是比較親;如果權富分佈傾斜到一個地步,也許就能克服同居一地和基因-文化的親切感,層比較親。可層最好有共同點,生活類似,有共鳴,如臺灣和韓國的底層。北歐底層和中非底層就比較難。


頂層也可以想一想:
同文同種的底層比較親還是異文異種可生活方式相似的頂層比較親?
你比較相信頂層人還是底層人?
你會爲了生活方式相似的異文異種頂層而反抗種族民族主義的崛起嗎?
同文同種的底層優先還是異文異種可生活方式相似的頂層優先?

如果頂不住了,全球底國(periphery countries)的頂層可能會往全球頂國(core countries) 投靠,好像當年法國大革命時法國頂層人紛紛逃到歐洲各國。

但全球頂國本身也貧富懸殊、頂底分化,在增長的極限下爲了保住自己的份額,會歡迎底國的頂層嗎?底國的頂層優先還是頂國的底層優先?

底國的頂層可以想想上面的問題。“當務之急,拼命掙錢,如果不妙,移民走人?”是不是想像般那麼好?
赵国人在頂國還是赵家人嗎?
赵家人在頂國還是赵国人嗎?


如果這可以被理解爲文化-基因自然選擇,那麼傳承已久的文化應該有些機制制止頂層因爲過于自/家厶而導致整個文化滅亡?

種族民族情緒也許是自然制止頂層自毀族群的機制,但却被頂層誤用(因爲過于自/家厶)來自肥。

有權就有責,當權力財富分佈太過傾斜,頂層與底層太過脫節,文化的滅亡頂層負上主要的責任。

過于自厶的全球頂層毀了整個全球化,如果外星人入侵……


在馬來西亞的情況:平民親還是有錢族人親?
同樣民不聊生的非權貴馬來人(non-UMNOPutra)親還是有聯係大老闆有錢馬華人親?
這可決定馬來西亞會走向甲圖還是乙圖的方向。

在香港的情況:内地沒上車的人親還是香港地產大亨親?
臺灣无殼蝸牛親還是香港地產大亨親?
當内港的頂層資金自由出入,内港的底層却分化,被動的被壓得死死的不意外。


這個多族頂底互動模型不限于國族,也可以是種族、民(語文)族、家族、(宗)教族……

族親還是層親?

不過就好。

打從人類開始繁殖、增加社群/社區/社會以來,人與人之間的互動、人與其他生物環境的相處,要怎樣好好共生?要怎樣控制糾紛?要怎樣可以長期持續下去?應該(ought)怎樣生活纔好?許多智者提出見解,整理成比較有系統的理論,發展成現在德理學(ethics) 的研究。

德理學有不少理論,建立于不同的世界觀。譬如人權理論的假設是“天(God)賦人權”,儒家倫理理論假定“人性本善”,法家則認定“人性本惡”,而「不過就好」假設“變化是宇宙的常態”以及“物極則反”。這些假設都可以檢視。好像人性如果原來是善惡兼有,有惻隱之心,也有厶心(包括家厶、國厶、人類厶等等),每个人的善惡比例各異,極耑善或極耑惡(完全沒有惡或善)的人非常少,那麼,“人性本善”或“人性本惡”的假設不完全成立,理論的實踐在假設失效的時候就會出現問題、考驗。

一個好的德理學理論假設不太過复雜,容易推展(不需要一直修改、重新詮釋理論)至人之外的生物、地球以外的生物……經得起長期實踐的考驗、時間變化的考驗。

瞬息萬變、亂象叢生,怎樣纔能好好生活?學習德理學,有所助益。

%d bloggers like this: