2003 年 11 月 30 日 星期日 【乍雨乍晴】

真不知道為何我命中要讀social sciences。
雖然也算適合自己(相比理科)，而且也算是實用，可以看到很多，接觸到很多。
但大多是理論化的東西，我記憶力太差，記不牢。
更大的問題是，我興趣不在這裡。
這科讀來讀去都是前人的、別人的、什麼學者學派的什麼學說。
都是別人的思想，都是別人的話。
自己的呢?自已怎樣看才是最重要吧。
面對學術，不是不可以創見，只是不太敢罷了。
創見不同創作。
前者要經過觀察、調查、研究、整理、綜合、分析、建構........幾百九萬樣o野。
少點學識、頭腦和精力，都難以做得出來。
不夠嚴謹便枉稱學術。
創作呢?一樣野，就係吹水。
唔駛煩。只要天馬行空。
舒服好多。
o岩懶人。

>>December 1, 2003 at 1:45:48 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 29 日 星期六 【乍雨乍晴】

一鼓作氣失敗。
昨晚洩了那道真氣，未夠一點已經與周公討論social changes.
不過今天也是做了一整天paper。
斷斷續續大約十個小時是對著電腦吧.....
但進度很慢，還沒有做完。
Econ paper要有根有據，不能亂吹水.........
原來social changes那份paper改了最後限期，5號才是deadline。
我頂~~~!

●●

http://www.oecdwash.org/
「...OECD網頁內討論的範圍非常廣泛, 題目包括: 經濟發展和國際合作、長期經濟分析、教育、就業、勞工、社會事務、能源、環境、金融、投資、稅務、競爭、漁農業、食品、洗黑錢、打擊貪污、公共行政、科學技術、地區性發展、貿易、交通、持續經濟成長、人口老化、管制改革、電子交易等。上述的項目都有大量的統計數據和官方文件可供參考, 另一方面, 各位又可以在此讀到有關OECD的新聞。...」(節錄) 撰文: 涂國彬
這是一個很有用的網站。

上網搵料時，
在OECD Observer看到一篇有關social sciences的新聞稿。
原來social sciences有很多科目，我也是看完這文才知道。
好像什麼也與social sciences有關似的......
文中批評了social sciences 的保守和停滯不前，
也探討了其發展方向。

"Into the future with social sciences"

Increasing violence, ageing, ethnic strife and global warming – these problems present the often misunderstood social sciences with a chance to prove their worth. But should they change first?

By Jean-Eric Aubert
Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
Published on: October 01, 1999
Page 76

It is not forbidden to dream of building a better world, which is by and large what the social sciences try to help us to do. How to make cities more harmonious, reduce crime rates, improve welfare, overcome racism, increase our wealth -- this is the stuff of social sciences. The trouble is that the findings of social sciences are often dismissed as being too theoretical, too ambitious or too unpalatable. The methods of research are also often attacked for their lack of rigour, and critics are quick to point out that the people who make the important decisions pay little attention to what social scientists have to say anyway. This would change if the social sciences made themselves more relevant and ready for the society of the 21st century.

Social sciences began to take shape in the 19th century, but came into their own at the beginning of the 20th century, when a number of well-established disciplines, including economics, sociology, political science, history and anthropology really made their mark. Geography and psychology could be added to that list. However, only sociology, political science and economics have succeeded in consolidating their position in the social sciences mainstream. The others were virtually all marginalised. Moreover, powerful institutional barriers now separate the various disciplines.
Hardly the right atmosphere in which to grow and deal with the harsh criticism which the social sciences have come in for from many quarters, including governments and international commissions. Radical measures are now being suggested to turn things round, from how to award university chairs, to setting syllabi and raising funds.

The need for decompartmentalising and striking a new order in the relationship between the disciplines concerns all of the social sciences, though perhaps economics most of all. Only it has acquired a dominant position in management and public affairs. Some would say it has fallen under the sway of "unitary thinking", with little room for debate, for example, on the question of debt reduction or monetary tightness. Moreover, many people do not believe that economic science forms part of social sciences at all. This is a somewhat problematic position to uphold, particularly as economic developments are largely determined by political, social and cultural factors. Yet, economists often have difficulty understanding or taking such factors into account. This has left economics exposed to attack, for example, over its prescriptions for development and its analysis of events, such as the causes of the Asian crisis. To many, economics relies too heavily on hypothetical and sometimes unrealistic assumptions.

It seems clear that to explore the socio-cultural foundations of economies rigorously and methodically, one must draw on the other social sciences. Take anthropology, for example. It is a discipline which can attempt to explain the influence of value systems, institutions, family structures and even religious backgrounds on the behaviour of individuals. But for many years, anthropology and its related offshoot of ethnology were confined to the study of exotic societies. However, it can also throw light on the functioning, if not the future, of our own societies. So does that mean it is high time to give fuller backing to the study of an anthropology of contemporary societies? Probably yes. The discipline has not only begun to acquire academic legitimacy, it has already attracted the serious attention of businesses eager for a detailed understanding of the behaviour of households, investors and the like. This is particularly true of multinational enterprises dealing with cross-cultural operations. A survey commissioned by IBM in the 1970s in over 60 countries where the company had subsidiaries is a perfect example of this. Many surveys since then have highlighted the influence on management of socio-cultural factors, such as the degree of individualism, control over uncertainty and attention to hierarchical structures and gender balance in employees' behaviour.

Apart from the multi-disciplinary qualities of the social sciences themselves, there is also the proposition of a closer relationship between the social sciences and natural sciences. There is already an overlap as a result of what is happening in the development of neuro-sciences: for example, research centres in this discipline have biologists, doctors, psychologists, sociologists, mathematicians and philosophers working closely together. Another example features the quality of the environment, the availability of natural resources, and even the productivity of marine environments: all are strongly influenced by human, or anthropogenic, factors. Now, world-wide programmes conducted in fields such as the study of global warming bring researchers in natural and human sciences together at the same table. There is no question that the demand for people who have been well trained in both types of science will increase from now on, and academic programmes will have to be introduced to meet this need.

Governments have a sense of how social sciences can help in the management of societies. They are also relying increasingly on the social sciences to deal with particular problems they are now facing. The UK government runs research projects on young people in urban environments and the findings of these studies have had a powerful influence on the design of government programmes for combating social disintegration, exclusion and unemployment. It would not be foolhardy to suggest that the research helped to forge the climate of opi-nion that marked the 1997 general elections.

Still, the circumstances in which the social sciences have been integrated into political debate vary from country to country, although numerous recent initiatives have been influenced by a desire to bring researchers and users closer together. The Canadian government has, for example, set up a national network of centres for research into issues like immigration, with the close co-operation of local authorities, immigration services and other concerned bodies.

Generally speaking, the social sciences will wield more influence in the management of public affairs and will find their proper role when the right conditions exist for democratic and informed debate at every level, whether national or local. Currently, dialogue between social science researchers and "society" all too often takes the form of one-way lecturing, with researchers given little opportunity for interaction with social groups. Sweden has acted on this by recently launching an important programme that involves the social sciences in the question of sustainable development, and which expressly provides for in-depth consultations between researchers and civil society.

IT can make a difference
There is every reason to believe that social sciences will be transformed -- maybe more so than natural sciences -- by advances in information technology and the ability to collect, process, stock and disseminate enormous quantities of data. It is beginning to be possible to link existing data bases in many fields in different countries, and to carry out large-scale, integrated, comparative analyses. Huge surveys can now be conducted on an extensive range of subjects on the Internet, which is clearly helpful in studying the perceptions and behaviour of a wide variety of people. And IT has opened up the possibility of working in virtual laboratories that link up large numbers of research teams on a worldwide network.

This is no technological fantasy of the social scientist. Through the National Science Foundation, the US government has already instituted experimental initiatives in several fields. For example, a virtual research centre on violence has been set up to collate and supply information from dozens of researchers in some 20 institutes working in all disciplines from psychology and criminology to economics, biology and statistics. In some ways, the potential technology holds for the social sciences can be compared to the effect it has had on climatology. A few decades ago climatology relied on information that was provided haphazardly and intermittently by observatories scattered round the world. Now, with the use of satellites, our understanding and forecasting of climatic phenomena has improved immeasurably.

So can social sciences bounce back and assert themselves in the 21st century? We will probably not be able to tell for a few decades, since the ways in which societies analyse themselves develop very slowly. After all, the social sciences are rarely given to sudden discoveries and headline breakthroughs like some other sciences. What is more, social sciences may continue to face the stout resistance of established institutions defending their own territory and opposing innovation and change. Could it be that society, which by definition seeks stability, has an inbuilt resistance towards indulging in any form of self-analysis? Few people have an appetite for hard truths. But perhaps in the information age and in the dematerialised economy of the knowledge world, all that could change. Perhaps society will discover a pressing need to know itself much better, if only to survive. Social sciences will then be very much in demand.

●●

想知道什麼是social sciences，看完後開始有點認識吧?

>>November 30, 2003 at 5:24:16 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 28 日 星期五 【晴】

想起奇斯洛夫斯基的"白"──製造一個陷阱給自己深愛的人，
再以寬容的姿態去作安慰和拯救。
目的是表現自己在危難中、在對方無助時必不離不棄。

愛的證明。
愛的吊詭。
此之謂乎?

因為要平等，所以大家也要有所「失去」。
然而大家也很安慰。
因為大家都覺得這樣真的很平等了

●●

還未看過奇斯洛夫斯基的《紅白藍》三部曲中任何一部，
在他的作品中，只是看過《十誡》中的《殺》片而已。
聽說《情》片是《十誡》中最好看的一套。
對於《白》的認識，其實也只限於聽過陳慧繪聲繪影的介紹。
有機會真要見識一下大師的作品，要全部看它一遍。
記得看《殺》片時，那種影像的震撼性、新鮮感、劇情內容的啟發性，
都給我很深刻的印象。
再對上一次有如此深刻感受的，則是陳果的《香港製造》了。

說起看電影，還有《X-MEN》、《致命身份(Identity)》、
《假如愛有天意》和《鬼潛艇(Below)》未看。
放在家中已經多時，盒封面也出現了一層薄薄的塵。
在宿舍見到Angus的桌面有一隻《涉谷二十四小時》的vcd，
也都很想看呢!

但時間是一個很大的問題。
坐在電視機前面耗一兩個小時，不是我現在應做的事。

>>November 29, 2003 at 2:43:22 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 28 日 星期五 【乍雨乍晴】

做了一整天paper呢!
由早上9點幾開始至晚上7點幾，一直都對著電腦。
用了一天，做完了Social Changes自己負責的那一部分。

晚飯後再把那份paper修改了一下。
只要收到E-太郎負責的那部分，再加一些圖表，執頭執尾，便正式完工。
之後又修改了Research Methods的 references list，
加了一些作者名和書名號，使其看上去嚴謹一些。
兩份都趕得及在星期一交到教授手上了。
太好了!

今晚會繼續做econ paper。
加油!!!!!!!
應該會3點幾4點才去睡吧......?
也可能會通宵趕工，看進度如何。

還沒有溫maths呢!.....唉.....
下星期二便final，不可以再糗了！

本來明天晚上約了mc、嘉慧等眾人晚飯，
慶祝kimmy牛一。廿二歲了~
但看情形.................可能要甩底了.........
還未決定去不去。
仍是那句，看進度如何吧~

呀~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!
忍不住要大叫一聲！
一鼓作氣吧!!!

>>November 29, 2003 at 2:08:49 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 26 日 星期三 【晴】

本來打算回到家可以好好做功課，
沒料到會有突發事件。
今晚似乎不可能定下心神趕功課了，
唯有明天一早起身去做吧。
多謝嘉琪。
多謝Jessie。(雖然我不認識她，但也真的謝謝。)
多謝肥龍。
多謝Wendy。
友情在患難中更顯可貴。
朋友，不是光用口說出來便是的。
正如愛情不是單靠說話去表達的一樣。
有多少人口說把你當朋友，背後當你傻仔。
不可能言行一致的人，只怕都是偽君子，真小人。
你們對她的關心，足證你們絕不是這一類偽善的人。

●●　

愛情，在很多人眼中都是美好的。
只是我看到更多的是自私、貪婪、背信棄義和欺矇。
在好像很美麗的愛情故事背後，很多時隱藏了人的醜陋本性。
愛情的開始、進行和結束，不外是隱藏，互相討好和現出本來面目。
人是善變的動物。
但錯不在人的善變，而在於人有感情和有思想。
錯在我們太依賴感情。太喜歡追究原因。
我看人與人之間的感情是有點悲觀，但生活在現實之中，卻不容我太樂觀。
只看到愛情美好一面，只聽取甜言蜜語，而不顧現實層面，以為戀愛至上，
我只覺得是入世未深，過於天真的表現。
人與人之間的關係都是短暫的，最長不過百年。
愛情在生命中只是其中一部分，不是全部，有時候甚至可以嗤之以鼻。
至於什麼時候可以用鼻子作鄙視狀，則當然是在不歡而散的時候了。
在戀愛中，最重要是投入。
在分手時，最重要是灑脫。

我覺得我是一個很沒趣的人。

>>November 27, 2003 at 5:41:19 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 25 日 星期二 【晴】

開始打paper!
一個鐘左右"度"了一版出來，對我來說算幾快手。

點解我可以o係如此忙碌的時間，在此緊要關頭，
仲可以悠悠閒閒咁既?
其實我真係有好多野要做，但我都可以用一日時間，出去行街食飯。
行下行下的時候，仲可以係毫不緊張、大搖大擺o個隻款。
好似今日，因為我要買快譯通，
就同ewing & 老媽去了屯門市中心閒逛。
除了快譯通之外，還買了一部JNC的MP3。
我係一個無咩危機意識，唔識死的人。
yeah~~~!!

但係唔識死係有代價的。
今晚就要死個漫聯fiancial report出黎.....
但經過我的努力，和一輪手忙腳亂之後，用左兩個鐘左右死左份出黎~
做得好!!
咁有效率，真係忍唔住要讚o下自己!!
仲有時間夜晚睇下書。
星期一交Social Changes paper，未做過。
不過係group paper，而且之前present過，更而且唔太難做，
所以唔擺係first priority。

今晚通頂都要做埋份econ paper，唔係就真係好大獲。
希望星期六日可以用一o的時間溫maths，下星期二考試。
陣間去library借tourism的書，做完econ paper，緊接就係呢份。
o係下星期五一齊交。

假如過去既呢個星期係第13至15屠地獄，
下星期我就要勇闖第16至18層地獄。
會係真正考驗。
不過，根據我的過往經驗，
我採取的態度仍然會係"船到橋頭自然直"。

希望唔會變成"船到橋頭自然撞"。

>>November 27, 2003 at 2:00:12 AM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 25 日 星期二 【晴】

累不是藉口!!!!
明知今天present，我竟然睡過了頭!!
趕到去課室，組員已經把我那部份也講完了.........
他們也沒有用outline，因為outline在我身上。
累.......
累街坊。
..........
......幸好這只是個很求其，每人說不到十句話的微小型present....
只為方便professor計算課堂參與表現而已，不是功課，影響不大。
有影響也只是影響我自己而已..............

>>November 26, 2003 at 3:14:29 AM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 24 日 星期一 【晴】

基本上在library渡日。
上網看報紙。
民建聯在區選大敗，衆狗官一臉無奈，大快人心。
只是區選，香港卻有過百萬人投票，盛況比得上七‧一。
原來香港人不是政治冷感。其實是很冷靜、很理智，公民意識極高。
平時不作聲，默默耕耘。但也非順民。
要冷靜時冷靜，要果斷時果斷。懂得用有效的方法去得到最大的利益。
雖然很多事情都以金錢為衡量標準，但在勢利現實中也願意堅持公義和理想。
香港人真的很特別，也很可愛。
值得有一個更好更好的政府。

溫書！溫書！溫書！溫書！溫書！
溫書。溫書。溫書。溫書。溫書。
.........溫書.........溫書.....
溫.....書...溫...溫.........z....ZZ..Z..

●●

做RM project，接近完成，但"拿拿西西"。

晚飯時間，Ricky同Louise有約，獨剩我一人.....
在淒淒慘慘戚戚之際，於大門口碰見BoBo，好一個雷霆救星!
她要到新墟補習，正好一起晚飯。
可是我們上錯車，到了新屯門中心......
那個PK司機昆了我們，他明明是說會經新墟的。
為了賺錢，埋沒良心？！他一定不是百萬選民之一！
....其實也沒什麼大不了~因為很近新墟~!
到了小巴黎。

●●

在宿看了一會兒書，打了明天present outline。
於不停有人在房間出出入入的情況下，不支倒床。
很累。

>>November 26, 2003 at 3:02:32 AM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 22 日 星期六 【颳風】

點解會咁架?
點解我番到屋企會咩都唔想做架?
呢兩日真係咩都無做過呀!
我竟然o係度逃避呀!!
無溫書!無做paper!連漫聯月結都無做呀!
下個星期仲有mid-term同present呀!
咩都無做呀!!output係0呀!!我o係度放縱緊自己呀!
我竟然o係呢個緊要關頭突然變左一pat野呀!
我究竟想點?
gpa已經o係懸崖邊徘徊，2.5都唔過，
我真係唔想再低落去呀!我的目標係至少過3架!!
努力o的啦，好無?!!
呀~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
好想...唉.......
好想見到你呀...
看完那個video之後...
其實你感覺得到嗎...?

●●

想o係聖誕節有搞作!!
前排阿道問會唔會好似以前咁，搞個christmas ball玩下?
搞鬼咩?!
大顆兒仲邊有心情好似以前咁？亦都無咁得閒啦!
雖然係好開心，又有錢賺.....
c0又話番黎......今個christmas應該搞o的野冲喜下。
c0~有無idea呀?
搞個party，叫大家攜眷出席好無呀?

>>November 23, 2003 at 2:13:53 PM GMT+8

2003 年 11 月 22 日 星期六 【晴】

在別人眼中，我可能是一個不可信的人。
我如此說，是因為我說的話，總要被人懷疑。
我很不想在我費盡心力，去作解釋、申明自已之後，別人仍對我有所懷疑。
更可怕的是，即使我言行一致，仍可以換來冷冷的一句否定說話。
否定我的心思之餘，也否定我過去所作的一切。
同時也否定了我的人格。

我認真的說話，沒有人在聽。
我嬉笑的說話，卻總會有人相信。
真是奇怪。

是否這個世界的人，都愛聽假話?都只信假話?
何不想想，當知道假話背後的真相之後，
痛苦可是會加倍的。

●●

回到家什麼也不想做。
只愛消沉。只享受頹廢。
夜晚看了《咒怨》。
究竟是我太大膽，還是別人太膽小?
抑或說此片恐怖的都只是附會別人?
我只覺得《咒怨》很悶、很老套、很舊。
就像看《午夜凶靈》一樣，雷聲大雨點少，叫人失望。
某些情節更叫人忍俊不禁。
不禁要笑它的故作恐怖。

這個日記只能夠吟風弄月，偶然傷春悲秋。
雖然開心感動的事可以記錄下來，但很多事不便明言。
在心底更深更深處的感情，更不可能直言無礙了。

可是，不要緊了，當作減輕負累也可。
要忘記的事，我一轉頭便可立刻忘記。
不可能忘記的，無論怎樣我也不會忘掉。
心中總存有另一本日記。

>>November 23, 2003 at 7:43:08 AM GMT+8