12.23.2009

陳哲追逐中國海協會陳雲林到大甲鎮瀾宮 拒絕走上統一不歸路

 「三月瘋媽祖」,大甲鎮瀾宮媽祖今年遶境啟程,個人反宗教不會想去,但曾到鎮瀾宮門外。

那是2009年12月23日海基會董事長江丙坤陪同中國海協會陳雲林一行參訪大甲鎮瀾宮時機,當日個人跟隨台中的台灣國「台灣中國一邊一國」戰車沿路追逐,在鎮瀾宮外幾十公尺處戰車就被擋下。
「三月瘋媽祖」,大甲鎮瀾宮媽祖今年遶境啟程,個人反宗教不會想去,但曾到鎮瀾宮門外。

那是2009年12月23日海基會董事長江丙坤陪同中國海協會陳雲林一行參訪大甲鎮瀾宮時機,當日個人跟隨台中的台灣國「台灣中國一邊一國」戰車沿路追逐,在鎮瀾宮外幾十公尺處戰車就被擋下。上第一張照片見個人在車上高舉「拒絕走上統一不歸路」看板宣傳。
因為我們距離陳雲林一行還有幾十公尺,上第二張照片見個人曾下車企圖步行前進,但被便衣與制服警察層層包圍,個人上衣背面見自製的「台獨份子」貼紙,照片遠處鎮瀾宮信徒驚見我們幾個突然冒出來鬧場的人,不信有人敢公然反國民黨政府,近處的警察與民眾則想看個人這個當場被困的「台獨份子」會做出什麼「暴力」舉動,個人很遺憾國家要大家一起來救,結果當地人都做壁上觀,看個人演戲,即使現場實力懸殊現場還是劍拔弩張。


個人自稱「台獨份子」,致力於洗清國民黨抹黑「台獨份子」的暴力形象,也同時要展現勇敢的台灣人精神,於是第三張照片見個人在現場還是突破警力阻擋前進,到個人不能再動時就跳上阻擋的紐澤西護欄上繼續高舉看板宣傳,這是當日台灣獨派所能到達的最前線,這畫面刊上次日自由時報。自由時報照片可見網址:https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/361068

陳立民 Chen Lih Ming (陳哲)

3.17.2009

如公民社會

原在 "發表文章" 處看日期 20090317.

深刻意義, 因為是人的內在生活, 深情自我, 跟著感覺走, 凍未條, 人有追求幸福的權力


短短一生, 無人知來過此世界, 為少數人活, 探病的人, 參加喪禮的人.

3.16.2009

殯葬並無禮儀

就像其他儀式一樣, 如結婚,結婚照, 都是商業商人創造的, 殯葬儀式也是一樣. 結婚不需儀式人,

省錢, 少則十幾萬, 多則幾百萬.



















《送行者》、《哀悼人》先後獲獎死亡禁忌 再成日本創作話題
2009-02-24 中國時報 【黃菁菁/東京廿三日電】
《送行者:禮儀師的樂章》獲得奧斯卡金像獎最佳外語片獎,此片討論生死觀的問題,無獨有偶,日前公布的日本文學大獎,第一百四十屆「直木獎」的得主天童荒太,也是以描寫生離死別的《哀悼人》獲獎,死亡這個禁忌話題,近來在日本成了最熱門的話題,也引發許多省思。
 《送行者》是日本近來難得叫好又賣座的作品。
 男主角本木雅弘年輕時到印度旅行,讓他開始思考生死觀的問題,後來讀了青木新門寫的《納棺夫日記》一書,知道有納棺師這個行業,向瀧田洋二導演提議拍成電影,而成功地將納棺師的故事變成一個探討生死大義,夾雜著幽默而不沈悶,讓觀眾無不感動落淚的好作品。
 其故事是描寫一個大提琴手因交響樂團解散而失業,帶著妻子從東京回到故鄉山形縣,找工作時被「旅行的幫手」廣告詞所吸引,沒想到應徵的工作竟是專門美化遺體,將遺體收棺入殮的「納棺師」。
 片中對納棺師面對儀體時慎重的神情與具美感的動作,對工作和夢想的驕傲,一般人對喪葬業的誤解、排斥,遺族與死者之間割捨不斷的真情等都細膩刻劃。主角也從工作及遺族的感謝中體會到「讓冰冷的遺體回春,化為永恒美麗」的神聖意義。
 至於直木獎作品《哀悼人》,則是描寫一個喜歡見證死亡現場的年輕人,他從新聞報導中得知有死亡事件時,便趕往現場憑弔素未謀面的死者,藉由主角的觀點探討人命輕重的問題。
 四十八歲的作者天童為了寫這部探討生、死主題的長篇小說,花了七年實際去觀察生離死別的現場,他像主角一樣親自到火災和殺人事件的現場,去思考模擬死者的心情。天童說,那真是很痛苦的體驗,回家後往往心情沈重,睡到不醒人事。









送行者用心 逝者有尊嚴
〔2009/3/2 LT 記者蔡彰盛/竹市報導〕「請您輕閉雙眼,讓我送您走完最後一程!」
甫獲今年奧斯卡最佳外語片的日本片「送行者─禮儀師的樂章」,描述原本在東京交響樂團擔任大提琴手的本木雅弘,因樂團突然解散而放棄演奏家之路。失業的他和廣末涼子飾演的妻子回到故鄉山形縣,在報紙上看到「旅途協助工作」的徵職廣告而前往應徵,當場獲得錄用。
後來本木雅弘才知對方徵求的竟是禮儀師,禁不住社長半強迫半利誘說服,他不情願地開始這份工作。
初時本木十分恐懼排斥,還得應付親友的誤解、周遭的鄙夷,讓他數度興起辭職念頭。但在親身經歷一場場送行儀式後,他漸漸瞭解到禮儀師妝扮往生者「走上來生旅途」的重要意義,終能自信地投入工作,並重獲眾人尊敬。
網友說,這是一部以輕鬆積極的態度,面對人生最後旅程的電影,死亡只是一道通往下一關的門,因此每一個人都可以走得美麗安詳,更讓我們體會珍惜當下、珍惜親情與愛情的重要。也有網友說,用專業與愛來送往生者最後一程,不但讓死者得到最後的尊嚴,也讓生者得到寬慰!







美女禮儀師 敬業不怕「死」〔2009/3/2 LT記者蔡彰盛/竹市報導〕她們原本是護士、櫃台小姐與理財專員,卻因為對於人們身後事的好奇,不約而同穿上了送行者的制服,成為生命事業的美女禮儀師,協助往生者走完最後一程,也改變了自己的人生!
新竹市聯合生命事業公司的禮儀師黃于珍,原本是專業護理師,在馬偕醫院擔任過十多年的急診室護士,在急診過程中就看過數不清的生離死別,也因此遇上做禮儀事業的朋友,轉業跨入這一行。
將心比心 贏得尊重
擁有醫療的知識與技術,再加上自修,黃于珍在修補大體這個領域,是業界的佼佼者,舉凡車禍、意外死亡等,缺了什麼皮該怎麼補,頭殼扁了該怎麼用模具、石膏復原,黃于珍都能做到讓家屬滿意。
本來在網咖當櫃台小姐的彭惠君,今年才21歲,但她原本膽子就大,且對生命事業充滿好奇,進這行幾年以來,她始終以與家屬一樣的同理心來處理喪事,見到家屬的悲痛,她也不由自主地掉下眼淚,這些閱歷使得她比同年紀女孩更世故。
她說,父親原本不肯她做這行,但自己本來年少輕狂,脾氣暴躁,如今卻完全變了個人,家屬看在眼裡,早就接受了。
李翠蘋離開理財專員的職務,投入禮儀師行列的原因,是為了這個工作既能行善,又有錢領,她深深體會這行「給家屬安慰,就是最大的回報」道理,儘管觀念保守的長輩嫌做這個怕會「帶東西回去」,但她堅信只要做好分內的事,就能為自己與這份工作,贏得更多的尊重。

































3.11.2009

中國哲學的意識型態

原日期 20090311.

中國哲學的意識型態:天人合一、物我圓融、、、萬法圓融、、第一dimension、。

中國哲學的意識形態中部份是認識論的:物我兩忘、、、、、、、。

當代的牟宗三:、、、、、、、。

3.08.2009

什麼是科幻? 什麼是事實? 彗星撞地球 基督宗教教義危害人類

原在 "發表文章" 處看日期 20090308, 到編輯處未見日期, 20161118 改標籤, 測試日期會怎樣.

不能做幹細胞研究

1989/3/23是否曾出現大彗星, 人類的殺手?

訂做完美baby 髮色膚色自選自由時報 更新日期:2009/03/04 04:09
〔編譯魏國金/綜合3日外電報導〕
曾在1970年代開創試管嬰兒研究風潮的先驅史坦柏格醫師,已讓數千對父母決定子女的性別,現在他更進一步,將在未來半年內讓準父母得以選擇孩子的眼球顏色、膚色與髮色。他說,第一個外觀「訂做寶寶」可望於明年誕生,全程費用為1萬8000美元(台幣63萬餘元)。
這種「訂做寶寶」服務引起生命倫理學家與人權團體的抨擊,天主教教宗本篤十六2週前也對「沉迷製造完美孩子的研究」提出警告。英國不孕症專家拉克伍德質疑,以如此方式應用相關科學是否道德?她批評這不啻「讓寶寶成為你從架上購買的貨物」。

引發人權團體批評
英國廣播公司(BBC)報導,這門科學根基於「胚胎著床前基因診斷」(PGD)技術,亦即在發展尚屬極早期的胚胎中抽出1枚細胞進行檢測,若該胚胎正常健康,則可植入母體子宮。
史坦柏格在紐約曼哈頓與加州洛杉磯經營的「生育研究所」(Fertility Institutes),將應用PGD技術,選擇出有金髮、藍眼等中意基因的胚胎,植入母親子宮繼續妊娠,其他胚胎則予以捨棄。

部分父母有醫學考量
他說,尋求這項服務的準父母或許有醫學與外觀的考量,比如已有孩子罹患黑色素瘤的父母,可能希望有個膚色較深的寶寶,以免日後罹患皮膚癌。當然也有父母純粹希望生出金髮壯丁。
事實上,「生育研究所」已為進行胚胎染色體異常基因篩檢的父母,提供外貌特徵的胚胎選擇服務。該診所網站指出︰「並非所有顧客都可以接受這些檢測,對於眼球顏色、膚色等要求,我們也不保證達到『完美預測』的水準。」
曾參與全球第一個試管嬰兒計畫的史坦柏格說,迄今成效最好的是北歐血統的夫妻檔,因為他們的基因庫被稀釋得最少。

陳立民:批評實在莫名奇妙,買任何東西我們都要自己選,配偶也是自己選,要花精神金錢養大的小孩去不要自己選,莫名奇妙。自己喜歡的小孩會積極認真養。更不談,可以降低生出殘障的小孩。歐美反對多是基督宗教(Christianity)的傳統,部份人權團體其實背後也是基督宗教。
消極

3.05.2009

★ 由彗星撞地球事件 可推論宗教錯誤 ★

大彗星撞地球事件是否可能發生?如果可能,則宗教可能無法成立。以下一則新聞。

新聞:逃過一劫 小行星與地球擦身而過(法新社巴黎:2009/03/3 日電/譯者:張仲琬)
天文學家今天表示,一顆小行星昨天從地球旁呼嘯而過。這顆小行星的體積,約等同於 1908 年西伯利亞(Siberia)上空爆炸的一顆隕石。當時的爆炸威力相當於 1000顆原子彈。
這顆小行星的編號為 2009DD45。美國行星學會(Planetary Society)網站與天文學家的部落格指出,2009DD45 的直徑估計約在 21 公尺至 47 公尺之間,於格林威治時間2日13時44分飛奔過地球。
網站「太空」(Space)指出,2009DD45與地球之間僅差7萬2000公里,相當於地球與月亮之間距離的1/5,或是地球同步軌道上的衛星與地球之間距離的兩倍。
澳洲塞丁泉天文臺(Siding Spring Survey)的天文學家最近一次偵測到2009DD45是在上月28日。國際天文學聯合會(International Astronomical Union)的小行星中心(Minor Planet Centre, MPC)也證實2009DD45的行跡。該團體主要的工作是分類太陽系的小行星。

(陳立民:這顆衛星的直徑約十層樓高,是否曾有類似大小的隕石撞過地球?)
小行星中心的紀錄中,曾與地球最相近的太空石塊是編號2004FU162的小行星。2004FU162的直徑約6公尺,2004年3月從地球旁疾馳而過,與地球的距離不到6500公里。
2009DD45的體積,約等同於1908年6月30日西伯利亞通古斯加(Tunguska)上方爆炸的那顆隕石。通古斯加大爆炸當時在地表上炸出逾2000平方公里的大洞,夷平8000萬棵樹木。

陳立民:恐龍絕種原因有一說是,約6500萬年前,大隕石撞地球,造成如大規模核子彈引爆,導致恐龍絕種。此外,較大型隕石層撞擊地球的證據也有不少。地球大氣層的保護也有其限度。按照現有的證據與天文物理學知識,未來有可能再次發生大規模彗星撞地球事件,並導致人類滅亡。此外人類對於宇宙的了解還太少,宇宙某處大爆炸可能使地球被摧毀。如果人類可能絕種,如何可能有神存在?有天道流行?要否認至今天文物理學、宇宙學的知識可能很困難。如果有神的話,至少在彗星撞地球的前一刻,神像蝙蝠俠一樣在最後拯救地球。到底,什麼是事實?什麼是科幻?
彗星或隕石重地球可能導致人類絕種,彗星是人類的殺手,至今,只有NASA與ESA做這方面的研究與防止工作,因此美國與西歐是值得我們尊敬的。

2.19.2009

流感 病毒證實進化論

宗教假設生物如機械般, 人類是另一領域, 二者俓渭分明, 但其實有些生物有中間現象

例如, 流感有目的的抗藥性。根本上,免疫學也是根據進化論。

染色體的突變,

計劃系統的交配

此外, 猩猩猴子近似人類, 甚至具備自我的雛形

2.01.2009

★Most of us are naturally inclined to cheat★

人性是否是一夫一妻制的? 下為一新聞報導 及相關美國網站上資料
偷吃是天性?美外遇網站正夯
2009/2/1 自由時報〔編譯魏國金/綜合報導〕


美國國家意見研究中心的調查發現,每四名男性中,有一人對伴侶不忠實,每五名女性中,有一人搞外遇。另外,今日美國報的民調顯示,五十四%的美國人坦承,在認識的人中,知道某人的伴侶有外遇。
不管背叛是出於基因或文化,紐約時報的調查發現,不貞的比率在攀升,年輕夫妻或年長男性尤然。在這股不是我騙你,就是等著被騙的兩性風潮下,無怪乎專為已有伴侶的男女而設的美國交友網站AshleyMadison.com,一口氣吸引三百五十萬名會員。AshleyMadison.com標榜的是「人生苦短,來段外遇」。該網站執行長畢德曼說︰「如果你對外遇蠢蠢欲動,我們可以幫你,這是萬無一失的方法。」紐約每日新聞報導說,這個網站作用就是協助搞外遇,但又不會被抓。
畢德曼的自信其來有自,因為該網站的會員不是感情的叛徒,就是在尋覓外遇對像。他說,當他看到交友網站上,許多會員實際上已婚後,就嗅出「與其他外遇者搞不倫」的廣大需求,他想,為何不為這些不甘寂寞的人設立網站?AshleyMadison.com也就應運而生。
五十二歲的新澤西婦女凱倫感謝該網站讓她的十五年婚姻絕處逢生。她說,其夫性趣缺缺,為此兩人爭吵不斷,直到她在網站上找到渴慕她的人,一切都改變了。她說︰「這是如此美好又令人興奮,對方樂於給予讚賞,提升了我的自信,這段地下情改善了我的婚姻。」
畢德曼也附和︰「我挽救的婚姻比摧毀的還多,我每天都收到感謝的電郵。」「我們是動物王國的一部分,…一夫一妻制度不存在於我們的DNA中。」


上述報導中提及網站AshleyMadison.com, 此網站口號為:"Life is short. Have an affair". 下為網站內引為理論根據的一篇文章. 心理學教授David Barash所著.

According to studies of the animal world, most of us are naturally inclined to "cheat" or at least have more than one mate in a lifetime.
- - - - - - -

By David Barash
Jan. 23, 2001

For most biologists, the fact that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child by one of his staffers is neither surprising nor a revelation. We've known for a long time that males from many species tend to be interested in sexual variety, particularly in having more than one partner.

Consider, for instance, this story: A missionary visited a Maori village in 19th century New Zealand and there was a feast in his honor. After the feast, the Maori chief called out, "A woman for the bishop." Noting the scowl on the prelate's face, the obliging chief roared again, even louder: "Two women for the bishop!"

Given the choice, most men would rather have two women than one (although not necessarily at the same time). And they'd rather have three than two. As Margaret Mead once pointed out, monogamy is the most difficult of all marital arrangements. For some time, biologists have had a good idea why. Men are sperm makers. Sperm are cheap and easily replaced. Unlike eggs, they do not require that the guy doing the fertilizing become pregnant, give birth and then nurse his young.

For women -- and females of most other species as well -- the situation is quite different, and, not surprisingly, females tend to be comparison shoppers, and sexually reticent compared to their male counterparts. So the interesting thing about the Jackson affair isn't Jackson's behavior. After all, ever since "The Scarlet Letter" we've been told that even men of the cloth are still men, under the cloth. Rather, it's why Karin Stanford, his paramour, went along.

And here, biologists have finally begun to catch up with common sense. Women, too, have extramarital affairs, and these need not be limited to an unmarried woman having sex with a married man, as with Stanford and Jackson (though it has been reported that she had a boyfriend at the time of her affair with Jackson), or Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, or Donna Rice and Gary Hart, or ... There are plenty of Madame Bovarys and Anna Kareninas. Adultery is a favorite human topic, in more ways than one.

Enter DNA fingerprinting, and not just for Monica's fabled blue dress. This laboratory technique isn't only useful for identifying unknown soldiers or freeing the falsely convicted. In recent years, it has surprised biologists with a whole new world of screwing around among animals, with likely implications for that troubled animal, Homo sapiens, the one that tries so hard to be monogamous and finds it so terribly difficult.

When we examine the genes of baby birds, even those species long thought to be absolute paragons of monogamous fidelity, we find that 10, 20, sometimes 30 percent of the offspring are not genetically connected to the socially identified father. Social monogamy (what biologists still call, somewhat quaintly, a pair bond) is not the same as sexual monogamy. Several decades ago experimenters vasectomized redwinged blackbirds in the hope of controlling their numbers. But many females, ostensibly mated to only those vasectomized males, laid eggs that hatched! Something funny was going on. But only now, with the accumulation of literally dozens of research studies using DNA data, do we know for sure: Females, even females in species long thought to be sexually faithful, often are not.

In the movie "Heartburn," based on Nora Ephron's barely fictional account of her marriage to the philandering Carl Bernstein, the heroine complains about his infidelity to her father, who responds: You want monogamy? Marry a swan.

Now we are discovering that even swans aren't monogamous!

Why not?

Again, there is no great mystery about why males often make themselves available for extra-pair copulations, or EPCs. The evolutionary payoff in fathering additional children can easily make up for the costs, assuming that some EPCs result in EPFs (extra-pair fertilizations), and the cuckolded male doesn't find out and take violent revenge. Of course, an EPCing male runs other risks as well, such as possible desertion by his own mate, or the chance that while he is trying to seduce someone else's female, that same someone else -- or another -- is making time with his own! But the bigger question, yet to be resolved, is why a female, especially one already mated, should seek EPCs. The costs of discovery can be great (notably violence from her mate or abandonment), whereas the benefits are obscure. Yet seek them they clearly do.

We now know that in numerous species, females go prospecting on the territories of adjacent males, especially when their own mate is off at work, foraging or patrolling the neighborhood perhaps looking for his own EPCs. Sometimes, to be sure, females are coerced into mating, but it is clear that even mated females are often sexual adventurers in their own right, actively soliciting EPCs from males who are not theirs.

It appears that there is no one-size-fits-all explanation for female infidelity among animals. Here are a few; each is valid for at least one species. Some might also shed light on the Madame Bovarys (or Karin Stanfords) among us: For an unmated female, reproducing is generally better than not, even if -- when monogamy is the public norm -- such a reproducing female has to be a single mother. An EPC can provide a female, whether socially mated or not, with fertility insurance, just in case her current partner doesn't produce enough sperm. She might also increase the genetic variety of her offspring by bearing the children of more than one male. An especially important consideration seems to be the genetic quality of her additional lover(s). It is very rare, for example, for already mated females to copulate on the sly with males who are socially subordinate to their current mates. Among those animals in which males sport secondary sexual traits that indicate unusual health and that females find sexually stimulating (bright plumage, enlarged feathers, especially attractive body features of other sorts), females will often mate with those fortunate males who are unusually good specimens, particularly if their own mates are less than prepossessing in this regard.

Barn swallows, for example, have deeply forked tails. The deeper the fork, the greater the appeal to females. Female barn swallows paired with males whose tails are only so-so tend to sneak copulations with neighboring males whose tail forkings have been artificially enhanced by researchers. Among the European birds known as yellowhammers, older males are brighter yellow; their enhanced brightness indicates that they have good longevity genes and also makes them more attractive to female yellowhammers, especially those mated to males whose yellow is less prepossessing.


A female can also gain immediate personal payoffs from successful EPCs. In some cases, she may be permitted to forage on territory maintained by a male, provided that she first copulates with him. When several adults cooperate in provisioning the young, males often adjust their parental efforts depending on their sexual access to the female: more fucking, more feeding. By inducing more than one male to have an interest -- or think he has an interest -- in the outcome of a bout of sex, cagey females reduce their own parenting duties. There are some species, including lions and a number of primates, in which adult males are likely to kill young they have not fathered. It has been suggested that in such cases females may have evolved to be sexually receptive to more than one male as a way of reducing the risk eventually faced by their offspring.
The evidence is now undeniable: Monogamy among animals is more myth than reality. What about human beings?

Here, too, there is no doubt. We are not naturally monogamous. Anthropologists report that the overwhelming majority of human societies either are polygynous or were polygynous prior to the cultural homogenization of recent decades. They also suggest that individuals are mildly polygynous, having evolved in a system in which one man maintains a harem. This, incidentally, helps explain the persistent sex appeal of successful, dominant men, whether they be high-ranking politicians, movie or rock stars, glamorous athletes or wealthy entrepreneurs. Power, as Henry Kissinger once noted, is the ultimate aphrodisiac. At the same time, women can and do seek additional sex partners, even when already mated. Thus, monogamy -- when it occurs -- is shot through with EPCs, not just among birds. Otherwise, why would men have such a powerfully developed tendency for sexual jealousy?

Why, then, does monogamy occur at all? Maybe it's like Winston Churchill's observation that democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the others that have been tried. At least monogamy is a great equalizer (in theory). It assures that in a species with equal numbers of males and females, no one need be left out. But at the same time, it cannot and does not prevent individuals of either sex from looking elsewhere.

Imagine a society of rigid social monogamy in which women nonetheless seek to be inseminated by the best possible males. Such males are rare, and likely to be already taken. So women might well adopt a kind of ratcheting-up tactic, in which they pair with the best man they can get, and thereby obtain his child-rearing assistance as well as whatever additional material resources he can provide, while also making themselves available for men further up in the hierarchy -- probably charismatic men like Jesse Jackson.

Such a motivation need not be conscious. In fact, a woman who has an affair with an attractive married man may intentionally avoid becoming pregnant. The point is that part of the underlying sexual motivation for the affair likely derives from these factors.

When right-wing Christian moralists worry that family values are under assault, they don't know how right they are! Monogamy, perhaps the poster child of family values, is under profound assault -- but not from any progressive, gay or feminist agenda. Rather, nature is the culprit.

We are imbued by Western culture with monogamous ideals. Yet, like other living things, we're often compelled by our biology to depart from monogamy. Neither men nor women are the primordial purveyors of extra-pair copulations, yet EPCs have dogged and delighted human beings throughout recorded history, and doubtless before. It takes two to do the EPC tango. And human beings love to dance.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer

David P. Barash is professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle. His most recent book, "The Myth of Monogamy," coauthored with his wife, Judith Eve Lipton, M.D., is to be published this spring.

Source:
http://www.ashleymadison.com/app/public/articles/1.p