人到中年 『十六悟』

 一位多年前的同事，現已退休，不時透過互聯網，傳来笑話，搞笑的新聞稿，精美的攝影圖片，但剛傳来的一小段文字，很有意思，尤其對已步入中年或準備過所謂『第三年代』的人士，故特傳載，文字不論全對、部分對甚或不對，不論網友們認同與否，也希望能帶给自己和朋友或多或少的一點點反思。


                                                         人到中年 『十六悟』

            人到中年，一個“悟”字，濃縮了人生的千言萬語明白了高處不勝寒，無力挽狂瀾的世事滄桑與無奈，於是在不知不覺中學會笑看世事繁華，淡定人生心態，不求不可取，不求不可得，隨遇而安，諸事順其自然；學會感恩，無憾我心的做人，做事，不再奢望浮華之夢，不再渴望美酒……

  一    生命與生活

          中年以後，過一天，少一天；過一天，樂一天；過一天，賺一天。


 二     幸福與快樂

          幸福不會敲門來找你，快樂也不能從天而降​​。幸福靠自己努力營造，快樂要千方百計去尋找。幸福和快樂是一種感覺和感受，關鍵在於心態。


 三      金錢

           金錢不要看得太重，更不必斤斤計較。一旦看開了，那是身外物，生不帶來，死不帶去；如果有人需要你幫助，慷慨解囊就是一大樂趣，如果花錢能買到健康和快樂，何樂而不為！如果花錢能讓你悠閒自在，也值！明白人能掙會花，善待自己。

 
四     健康是自己的

          金錢是子女的，地位是暫時的，榮譽是過去的，健康是自己的。

 五     不一樣

         父母對子女的愛是無限的，子女對父母的愛是有限的；子女有病，父母揪心，父母有病，子女問問看看就知足了；子女花父母錢，理直氣壯，父母花子女的錢，就不那麼順暢；父母家也是子女家，子女家可不是父母家；不一樣就是不一樣。明白人把對子女的付出視為義務和樂趣，不圖回報，如果一心想回報，就自尋煩惱。


 六     養病指望誰

   　　指望子女？久病床前無孝子。指望老伴？自顧不暇無能為力，還是指望錢吧，只能花錢養病。


七       珍惜得到

            對於已得到的，人們往往忽視它；對於得不到的，往往想得太美！生活的美好和幸福全在於怎樣欣賞，明白人十分珍惜和欣賞已得到的，並不斷地發現他的意義，使生活不斷充實和快樂。


八       擁有快樂的心態

    　　生活充滿感激和欣賞，比上不足，比下有餘，知足常樂；與人為善，樂於付出，助人為樂；培養多種愛好，樂此不疲，自得其樂。遇事以平靜的心態去對待，這樣就會永遠擁有快樂的心情，有了快樂的心情，就擁有了健康。


九       平平淡淡才是真

    　　高官厚祿，地位顯赫，是少數；平民百姓才是多數。少數人未必都是幸福，多數人未必不幸福；多數望著少數，不必自卑。人本無高低貴賤之分，只要對事業盡心盡力，就算作了貢獻，心安理得，問心無愧。何況大家都退下來了，大家都一樣，最終歸宿都要回歸自然；其實高官不如高祿，高祿不如高壽，高壽不如高興，高興就快樂，快樂就是幸福。


十       中年人到哪裡尋樂

           1    學習：讀書、看報、玩電腦、彈琴、繪畫、寫作和攝影。學什麼？任你挑，既長知識，又練了大腦，思想境界在提高。

          2    運動：游泳、跳舞、打拳，各有所好，增強體質，心情越發好。

          3    娛樂：旅遊、唱歌、打麻將，只要自己喜愛，從玩中取樂交友，何樂而不為！

          4    交友：晚年生活應該多層面、多元化，豐富多彩，只有一二個好友還不夠，要擁有一幫老友，友情能滋潤老年生活，使你不會感到孤獨，而且過得有聲有色，有滋有味。

   　　5   培養多種愛好和情趣，懷有一顆童心，不斷探索和實踐，讓生活多姿多彩。


十一      幸福家庭公式

             欣賞、尊重、表達 ＋溝通、理解、包容 ＋付出、互動、創新 = 幸福 ＋快樂。


 十二      為自己好好活一把

             人生大半輩子為事業、為父母、為家庭、子女而忙碌、活得很累。如今剩餘時間不多了，該為自己好好活一把啦！怎麼開心就怎麼過，做你想做和願意做的事，不管別人怎麼看，怎麼說！因為我們不是為別人的好惡而活，活出一個真實自我吧！


 十三       痛苦

            　一個人對痛苦的承受、忍耐、排解和消除，最終還要靠自己。時間是最好的醫生，關鍵還是在這段時間裡你選擇怎麼活法。


 十四       懷舊

            　人老了為什麼懷舊？人到晚年，事業已走到盡頭，往日的輝煌，已成為過眼煙雲，站在人生最後之驛站，心靈渴望淨化，精神需要昇華，企盼有純樸真情。這時，只有故地重遊，與親人相聚，共同追憶童年的夢，與老同事、老同學、老戰友共敘年輕時趣聞樂事，才能找到青少年時的感覺和那份真情，珍惜真情，享受真情，這也是老年生活的一大樂事。


 十五       順其自然

            　如果你盡了最大努力仍改變不了不滿和目前的現狀，那就順其自然吧！這也許是一種解脫。凡事強求不得，強扭的瓜不甜。


  十六       坦然面對死亡

            　生老病死，自然規律，不可抗拒。當死神抓住你不放時，你需坦然面對、笑傲死亡！只要咱一生為人正直，不做虧心事，就該心滿意足地給自己畫上一個圓滿的句號。

說男道女

                                                  說男道女


男人是上帝根據世界的需要而創造的；女人是上帝根據男人的需要而創造的。


男人愛上女人後，他會做詩；女人愛上男人後，她會做夢。


男人熱戀時聰明至極；女人熱戀時卻愚蠢無比。


男人考驗女人的方法是遠走高飛；女人考驗男人的方式是約會遲到。


男人戀愛後變得可憐巴巴，女人戀愛後變得神經兮兮。


男人酒後話多，女人婚後話多。


為女人發誓的男人是可笑的；為女人發財的男人是可愛的。




女人對男人往往會朝思暮想；男人對女人往往會朝秦暮楚。


女人的看家本領是撒嬌；男人的拿手好戲是撒謊。


女人吻男人算是一種幸福；男人吻女人算是一種口福。


女人總是希望她是他的最後一個女人；男人總是希望他是她的第一個男人。


女人堅持獨身，人們會認為她有毛病；男人堅持獨身，人們會認為他有事業心。


少女習慣用眼神征服男人；少婦習慣用眼淚征服男人。


聰明的女人會嫁給愛她的男人做老婆；愚蠢的女人會嫁給她愛的男人做老婆。


做情人的時候，女人會讓男人心疼；做妻子的時候，女人會讓男人頭疼。


化妝品對女人而言，是信心；對男人而言，是幻覺。


女人戀愛期間渴望對方裸露心靈，男人戀愛期間渴望對方裸露身體。

女人的相貌由她的男人決定

女人的相貌由她的男人決定   
每個女人都是純情少女,一切的改變,都是從男人身上開始,一個優秀的男人能使自已的女人光采照人.一個無能的男人,讓自已的女人滿面滄桑.光采照人的女人背後有一個愛自已的男人,有足夠經濟後盾,不用為生計發愁,天天健身,日日美容.日子過的有滋有味.滄桑的女人,日夜為生計奔波,為了兒女的學費,為了老人的養老費而省吃儉用,更舍不得為自已買幾件象樣的衣裳.日子過的清苦和辛酸.一個最普通的女人如遇上合適的男人,也會變的光采照人.一個優秀的女人如遇上一個無能的男人,也只能做個滄桑的女人. 
一個男人能造就一個女人,同時也能毀滅一個女人。
 從女人的身上能看到男人的一切

1.    一個衣著光鮮,神情憂郁的女人,她的男人一般是事業成功,外帶小秘者。
2.    一個潑婦型的女人,她背後的男人,也許就那種不善言語的老實人。
3.    一個女強人的老公,必定是個普通人。
4.    一個為錢奔命的女人,她的老公必定是個無能者。
5.    一個精神出軌的女人,她老公肯定在思想上和她不是同一個水平。

 

 雖然在理論上說男女平等,但實際上男女永遠不可能平等的。
一個女人選擇男人時，只要男人有能力就行了，
但也只有經歷過,才會懂得當初父母為女擇婿時的苦口婆心,年輕的女孩要的只是心動,是感覺,是長相.從沒考慮經濟和男人的能力.當一意孤行走進婚姻時,才發現父母的話才是對的,只可惜一失足成千古恨,再回頭已百年身.道路走錯了,可以往回走.人生的路走錯了,卻再也回不到從前了

 

男人不需要很多的財富,但必須有養家的能力。
男人不需要能力很強，但必須有保護妻兒的本事。
男人不需要很堅強，但必須要讓自已的女人。有安全感。
男人就該象個男人,負男人該負的責任,讓自已的女人光彩照人。

以前提到結婚，想到「天長地久」；
現在提到結婚，想到「能撐多久」。
 

當初會結婚，說是「看上眼」
後來會離婚，說是「看走眼」。

想結婚，是自己已能獨立；
想離婚，是子女已獨立。
 

嫁入「豪門」，要懂得理財；
嫁入「寒門」，要懂得生財。
 

以前的人，視婚姻生活為「一輩子」；
現代的人，視婚姻生活為「一陣子」。

婚前，愛情是神話；
婚後，愛情是笑話。

婚前，「謊話」都是「情話」；
婚後，「情話」都是「廢話」

婚前，男人常給女人「空白支票」；
婚後，男人常給女人「空頭支票」。

婚前，男人在餐廳等女人；
婚後，女人在客廳等男人。

婚前，男人天天盯著女人；
婚後，女人天天盯著男人。

婚前，靠近一點；
婚後，閃開一點。

婚前，沒話找話說；
婚後，有話也不說。

婚前，男人像傳令兵；
婚後，男人像指揮官。

婚前，男人經常找女人「討論」；
婚後，男人只告訴女人「結論」。

婚前，男人對她悄悄講話；
婚後，男人對她大聲講話。

婚前，情侶做什麽都是「浪漫」；
婚後，夫妻做什麽都是「浪費」。

婚前的男人，大都很幽默；
婚後的男人，大都很沈默。
 

戀愛時，情話綿綿；
結婚後，謊話連連。

戀愛時，一見面就「親嘴」；
結婚後，一見面就「鬥嘴」。

戀愛時，生活「妙不可言」；
結婚後，日子「苦不堪言」。

 

戀愛時的男人，喜歡「毛手毛腳」；
結婚後的男人，變成「沒手沒腳」。
 
熱戀時，總相許下輩子再結良緣；
結婚後，懷疑上輩子造作孽緣。

 

「成功」，對男人的定義是指能賺很多的錢，
對女人的定義是指能花很多的錢。

大男人，會「作威作福」；
好男人，會「作牛作馬」。

男人花錢，是為了讓女人高興；
女人花錢，是因為男人讓她不高興。

 

男人有錢就變壞，
女人變壞就有錢。

 

女人的記性，吵架時最好；
男人的耐性，結婚後最差。

男人沒有女人，耳根清凈；
女人沒有男人，居家幹凈。

男人「入錯行」，上班會很痛苦；
女人「嫁錯郎」，下班會很痛苦。

好女人，養壞男人的胃口；
壞女人，吊足男人的胃口。

 

失戀不見得是世界末日：
你的心也許會「泣血」，
你的荷包卻可以不再「失血」。

我想知道如果有一天我喝醉了，失魂落魄的走在街頭。會歇思底裏喊出誰的名字。會拿出手機給誰打電話。誰會著急的罵我：『 你這個笨蛋，你在哪？站在那別動，我馬上來。』如果真的有那一個人，我想，我這輩子就知足了。
　　　　　　　　　　　　
有多少人，明明分手了，卻還愛著 有多少人，明明還愛著，卻說放手了。 有多少人，明明難過，還微笑著說我很好人生中有太多太多的無奈 。　　
　　　

A living symbol of Human Freedom

Liberty is not something granted or bestowed upon us by any government, any authority, terrestrial or non-terrestrial. It is something which we are born with. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said in the 18th century: "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains." And what is political liberty for Rousseau?  It's "immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority; political independence.".

A man who spent all his life trying to break those chains, and not merely political chains, is Jean Paul Sartre. He is a brilliant writer who won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1959 but refused to accept it because he did not want to be incorporated into what he thought was the "bourgeois" establishment.

Sartre was the top student in the French national examination which may be roughly considered the equivalent of what used to be our "matriculation" examination. The second in that examination was Simone de Beauvoir, who became his lifetime lover and the author of The Second Sex.

Throughout his life, he was dedicated to the idea that man is truly free. He is free even to be inconsistent because he thinks a man has the right and the duty to go against even his own previous ideas and to deny and denounce his own past when the new situation makes such  past a hindrance rather than a help.

He became a member of the French Resistance when France was occupied by Nazi Germany during World War Two, then joined the French army and was made a prisoner of war. When he was released, he felt the need to be committed to the cause of revolutionizing France from its conventional bourgeois values. He joined forces with the French communists in the cause of its attempts to turn France into a socialist republic and for a time even became a Maoist but fell out with them in May 1968, when he helped the spontaneous student movement because of the French communists' refusal to support the revolution led by the students' and workers' own leaders, mainly because they wanted to have the revolution to go in the direction intended by the French Communist Party.

He is most famous for his idea that "existence precedes essence" meaning that a man is not subject to any pre-determined definition of what he is but instead must "create" his own values and determine the purpose and meaning of his own life not only through what he thinks but also by what he "does."

Contrary to what many people think, he thinks that to most people, freedom is a horrifying idea, something unthinkable because when one realizes that one is almost absolutely free to do anything he wishes subject only to the contingencies of his genes and his environment, with his future a complete blank, a dark void, an obscure nothingness, something completely open to his own "creation", one may find the burden too much, a terrible and insupportable weight upon their own conscience.  They would have lost the kind of "security" which their own "slave mentality" provides them. They would prefer just doing what "everybody" else is doing and follow the the majority, the herd, the crowd, the "others" and allow their lives to be guided by the latest fashion, the newest fads and the most recent trend. If not, they will have to experience and "live" the intolerable loneliness and unbearable uncertainty which a man who is the master of his own destiny must face vis-à-vis his own unknown future. They'd much rather live by other people's standards, the standards of say a Christian or some other god or some other religion, or of a political party, a particular ideology, a particular philosophy of life, in short some ready-made systems of values and form of "ism". To Sartre, this is "mauvais fois" or bad faith, infidelity to what a man can be were he willing to exercise the freedom with which he is born( a freedom which is his birthright), to make the relevant choices and be brave enough to be held accountable  for the consequences  of such choices. But whether a man is prepared to live up to his responsibility to himself, he is "condemned" to be free. He is free to act as his own master or someone else's slave. Either way, he has to choose. There is simply no way he can escape this curse of "absolute freedom".

A time for decision has come for the people of Hong Kong. Each of us can choose to be his/her own master/mistress or be somebody else's slave.

But if it's of any help, they have for reference the controversial example of the life of Jean Paul Sartre(1905-1980), philosopher, novelist, playwright, literary critic and political activist, who honestly lived in the kind freedom he firmly believes, rightly or wrongly, that everyone has and with commitment to whatever he has chosen, like a man. And what a life that was! Never in the history of the world had 50,000 people attended the funeral of a philosopher including the president of the country which gave birth to such a living symbol of freedom!.

Beautiful Nature

Photography is an amazing art

It's amazing because it enables you to capture rare but real scenarios of animal intimacy, like this necking of a cub fox with a cock.

or this dog licking a golden carp

 It's as much an adventure for the spectator as it is for the camera man

It enables us to find beautiful human forms where we don't normally expect them to be found on land

   

or against the sky

It reveals to us the intricate beauty of the radiating petals of flowers

or the unbelievable symmetries of Nature

whether they move by their own power or not

It enables us to find the inexpensive jewels of Nature

or the truly shameless flight  of sexual display in the air



and leaves us lasting memories of the magic of human intimacy

 

But it does require from us an eye for Nature's magic

It reveals the glory of the solar rays amidst the clouds and

the brilliance of its rays poised on the knife edge of awesome waves

and the nurturing tenderness of the waters which according to Laotze, is the mother of all life forms, giving without expecting returns, facilitating instead of fighting, seeking always to go where people abhor and perhaps for that reason, has no quarrels with anyone or anything.

A Political Barometer (政治晴雨表)

On the lst July, 1997, some 17 years ago, a piece of red cloth with 5 yellow stars on it fluttered over Hong Kong and another one with thick white bands against a similarly red background slowly went down, wiping off a dirty mark in Chinese history: losing the so-called Opium Wars which resulted in the Treaty of Nanking 1842 whereby the island of Hong Kong was ceded to that tiny island kingdom off the coast of Western Europe "in perpetuity" and the tip of what in the Land Registry records is written as "Kowloon" (as distinguished from New Kowloon, another area in the Kowloon Peninsula north of Boundary Street but south of the Kowloon Ranges together with what's called the New Territories, which were "leased" to the same island kingdom under Second Peking Convention in 1898, following the defeat of China by tiny Japan in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895.)  The return of the sovereign rights over Hong Kong, New Kowloon and the New Territories to the bosom to its motherland was non-negotiable. That's what Deng Xiaoping told Margaret Thatcher, the "iron lady" of Britain. Before the steely resolve of Deng, the iron will of the British Prime Minister buckled: she faltered at the steps of Great Hall of the People in Tian An Men Square in Beijing when she came out from the long awaited "negotiations".

Deng was a truly innovative statesman. He knew that owing to historical reasons, Hong Kong could not be treated the same way as the rest of China. He pledged to Britain and the people of Hong Kong that for the next 50 years, ie. for slightly more than 2 generations, a different socio-economic-political system would be practised in Hong Kong under the unprecedented principle of "one-country, two systems" which includes the political system.  Under the Joint Declaration between Britain and China in 1983, the people of Hong Kong was promised a democratically elected Chief Executive and a similarly elected legislature. 17 winters and summers have since passed. Still no signs of a truly democratically elected CE and Legislative Assembly in Hong Kong being in place! They are conspicuous by their absence.

Hong Kong is now a political mess, something neither China nor the people of Hong Kong find desirable. Solution? Both difficult and simple: a paradigm shift in the mind-set of those ruling Hong Kong either directly and indirectly. Is true democracy good for Hong Kong? Will the economy be affected if so? No one really knows, though many claim that they do: those who now stand to benefit enormously if we "don't rock the boat". The question is: is it a good boat for the people of Hong Kong as a whole and not just for an extremely small minority of those in charge of steering and guiding that boat? They talk as if it is such a boat. Is it? And if it is not, why shouldn't it be rocked? We are not blind, though they think that we are. They may have forgotten that we got eyes too and we are fully capable of telling what is good and what is not by looking at what's happening around ourselves. 

Should Hong Kong become another Singapore with all political power concentrated firmly in the hands of an efficient central government? That's probably the wishful thinking of Beijing. But Hong Kong is not and cannot be another Singapore: the racial, economic, cultural and historical mix are vastly different. The people of Hong Kong have become accustomed to the rule of law (not "rule by law"), to freedom of speech and freedom of political assembly. Moreover, the gap between the rich and the poor is much less in Singapore than in Hong Kong: the Gini Coefficient in Hong Kong in 2013 was 0.537 and rising but that in Singapore was only 0.463 and falling  (cf. China 0.473 also rising). When old ladies with bent backs in their 70's are found scavenging for paper cartons and pushing trolleys full of bundled up old newspapers everywhere in our older quarters, when some hourly or daily paid workers have to work more than one shift to keep body and soul together and when a young u-grad couple don't earn enough to be able to afford some decent housing on a mortgage, when a taxi driver died from overwork, what further signs do we need that a threshold of toleration has been reached and that the time for some pretty radical changes has come. We can't afford to wait. And we won't. As in so many other things, there is a limit to people's patience. We should never over-estimate the patience of the people in Hong Kong. In South Korea, you won't find 100,000 people marching peacefully in the streets. You will find people with white head bands marching with wooden poles in their hands. What more can you ask of the sheep-like people in Hong Kong? We may be most gentlemanly, but we are not fools.  There's much wisdom in the popular Chinese saying,  "Never drive a dog into a blind alley".

By any accounts, 17 years is a pretty long time. If we were to start counting from the date when democracy was promised to us from 1983, it's a full 31 years! We can't be expected to swallow that blatant "excuse" still being paddled around viz. that we must "move gradually" towards our final goal. Not any more. That excuse wears really thin after 31 years. We're not kids any more. We do know the difference between "moving gradually" and not being prepared to move unless being fiercely kicked in the "ass".

Perhaps it's about time that those in control of our political fate spend a bit more time on this simple reflection: real and effective changes can't be made unless our government has the support of the people expressed through their votes in a "truly democratic" election system. We don't want "counterfeit democracy" which is "passed off" as if it were an authentic political product. We don't mind "A- goods" or even "B-goods" from Shenzhen but we don't want "A-goods"  in our political system. There is a vital difference: we can very well do without fake "consumer goods" in our lives if we choose to but we can never forgive ourselves if we were to knowingly accept "fakes"  in our political democracy, something very serious, something which affects every aspect of our lives, not just our life as a consumer. Politics is always the art of the possible. In politics, there can be no permanent friends. Neither can there be any permanent enemies. All too often, the most dangerous people we got to face may not be our "enemies", but our "friends". Our political leaders should therefore beware of their "friends" and remember that the road to hell may well be paved with "good will" and "good intentions".  

We don't want fake-democracy  because even the blind can see what lies at the root of all the tiresome bickerings and those political farces we witness almost daily at our Legislative Assembly: that a government without "legitimacy" can never be expected to have the support of its people. There is "bound" to be "suspicions" about everything it does, especially about the "collusion between the government and the rich", real or imagined. Hong Kong has become ungovernable. When there is no genuine trust by the people in its government, "efficient government" can only become "a mirror moon" on the surface of the water ie. an illusion. Our political leaders may have a lesson or two to learn from the Great Yu (大禹) who dealt with the mythical Great Flood in ancient China not by building more dams, but by opening more water channels to lower the level of flood waters. It won't do them any great harm if they were to learn a few basic principles from our hydraulic engineers and from the principles of fluid dynamics: the higher the dams, the greater will be force for potential damage when they burst. There is still enough time for a change of mind, before it's too late. But time is running out. 

The photos I took at yesterday's march are self-explanatory, as they say:  "res ipsa loquitur".

By the most conservative account, nearly 100,000 were at Victoria Park. Many expressed themselves, not with their words but with their feet. I could see that not a few were upper middle class, a normally pretty taciturn group. Perhaps it's about time that those who have power over the political future of Hong Kong wake up to the political reality. It may be a most unpleasant experience to be disturbed from one's sweet dreams. But pleasant or not, what's got to be done has got to be done! Unless one is prepared for a bloodpath. It's as simple as that. No one wants that, least of all the people in Hong Kong, the people of Hong Kong and people with the genuine interest of Hong Kong and China in their heart.  One 4th June is quite sufficient for China. Only the stupid or the stubborn will refuse to read the writings on the wall. What do the people of Hong Kong really want? The answer is blowing in the wind and the rain on the streets and pavements of  Lockhart Road and Queen's Road.