評：文字的力量 朱志學寫於 2011年4月9日 15:10 評：文字的力量～why "change your words", then
"change your world" being possible? ...........
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=212553008771222&oid=123021407765953&comments
評：文字的力量～why "change your words", then "change your world" being possible? ...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzgzim5m7oU&feature=share
當片中偶然行經而過的神祕女子,俯身翻轉乞丐的紙板,而後將“Ｉ am blind ,please help”改寫為“It's a beautiful day and I can't see it.”
這真是個奇蹟的瞬間^^
事實上,這正是巴修拉空間詩學所說的moment of poetic.
霎時讓人眼光一亮的詩意瞬間,在極短的時間內,大火燎原般的力量延燒並點燃了每一個適逢其會者的“詩意瞬間”........
我隱然看到一股火焰的傳遞～
川流於每一顆被那直入人性深處的“洞見”給照亮的心靈。
於是,這神奇的角落,彷若瞬間漩起一股強大的臨在力量。
就某一個隱微而不可見的奧義而言：這個角落,在這奇蹟的片刻,形成一道與天堂的“連結”（connection）。
銅板與紙鈔,霎時繽紛如雨！
有一股難以抗拒的深沈動力,自人性幽微處被瞬間啓動。
這就是詩的語言所挾帶的強大穿透力：叩問存在,而直入天地之心(touch the core of Being)............................
當那位神祕女子,重新回到這奇蹟發生的角落。
眼眶噙滿淚水的乞丐,困惑地問道：“What did you do to my sign？”
這位酷斃了的女子只是淡然笑道：“I wrote the same ,but in different words.”
我忍不住想及William Bernbach絕美的洞見：
"Nothing is so powerful as an insight into human nature... what compulsions drive a man, what instincts dominate his action... if you know these things about a man you can touch him at the core of his being."
他顯然也握有那把啓動人性存在核心動力的鑰匙,才能有這番深刻見地。
讓我們再度回到那奇蹟似的轉折發生的瞬間。
試著更深層地抉發～
是什麼樣意義下的“文字”,啟動了意識轉換的“邊界經驗”（experience of boundary）？
why "change your words",
then "change your world" being possible?
當片中偶然行經而過的神秘女子,俯身翻轉乞丐的紙板,而後將“Ｉ am blind ,please help”改寫為“It's a beautiful day and I can't see it.”
前者只冰冷地說出所見 ;
後者則更深地以文字引導人窺見那隱藏可見(visable)背後之不可見(invisable)的遺憾,而強烈喚醒了倖存者的悲憫與罪咎意識。
這一刻！俗情知見所制約的“世界”,砉然崩解。
我無法不特別注意到片中行乞角落：
行乞的社會邊緣者,與周遭的年輕笑靨,形成了強烈的反差。
這不就是“世界”的縮影！
海德格所云的世界,就具現在片中一派天真爛漫中流露著事無關己微笑之年輕人的嘴角;
就具現在街頭一張張冷漠、呆滯、麻木、無情、瑣碎、操煩、苦悶、憂傷、殘酷、野心與戲謔的面孔...........
可當詩意瞬間,猝然臨在！
世界砉然崩解。
浮光掠影般潛流意識深層的良知召喚,一時浩然泉湧,洋洋如在！
這就是標註性語言和詩意語言的不同。
前者創造斷裂(crack);後者則創造了連結（connection）。
不同的陳述,說出的只是同一個“事實“嗎？
不！
在現象學看來：沒有客觀的事實,只有繫屬於觀看者“觀物方式”而萬象紛呈之多元面向。
所云“事實”,每決定於觀看者的觀看位置。
這意味：真相是深藏著的！
根本不存在孤調而定於一尊的事實。
或者說,離開了“觀看的方式”與“觀看位置”,就沒有所謂“事實”。
語言,不只是作為達意工具的語言。
語言,在更深的意義上,它顯露了觀看者的“觀看位置”與“觀物方式”。
是把對象隔絕在外而作為認知對象的“知識性觀看”呢？
還是把對象與自己包含在內而作為同命共在之融然流動整體的“存有性觀看”？
前者透過標注與切割行為來界定對象。（迷色遺空,而不見色中之空）
後者不落對象化的界定而接受經驗本質必然函帶的“皺摺性”：那多重“觀看位置”與“歷史記憶”交相摺疊而包攏為一之多元紛呈的流動視域。（即色見空,而見其為真空妙有）
標注性語言用來界定對象,甚至連自己也成為被界定的對象,在這種觀物方式所形成的局戲裡,對象還是對象,你還是你,沒有同情共感的移情作用川流彼此的視野。
詩意語言則不然,它是叩問存在的語言,而非建立知識的語言。深度挖掘並將驚人的情境變異,串聯整合於一系列遙相呼應又充滿深度的隱喻意象,在悖離常軌的反差經驗下,營造了讓人眼睛一亮的瞬間,並在這moment of poetic 帶入一種跳脫俗情知見框架卻又直抵靈魂深處的“凝視”！這凝視瞬間粉碎了標注性觀物方式平板無感、隔靴搔癢與置身事外的冰冷定義,而直接自你內在引發出一種把自己和眼下對象都包攏摺疊在內的深遠迴盪之情。
這就是深於存有自體而不受遮蔽的詩意文字,它不是隔絕所觀物的文字碎片,而是在寂然有感中飽蘊萌生性與綻放性的文字烈焰～
這,才是真正的“詩”：
非關詩學格律制約下華麗的詞藻堆砌........
真正能自意識深處激起綿密深遠迴盪力量的“詩”,只能根植於存有的感應：直叩天地之心................
那大風捲水般席捲而來的強大力量,足以摧枯拉朽地瞬間粉碎一切籠罩局戲中的觀物方式,
並霎時照亮遮隱世界暗處的意識深淵,熠熠含光............
影片故事參閱出處：
版本ㄧ：
'Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it.'
A blind boy sat on the steps of a building with a hat by his feet. He held up a sign which said: 'I am blind, please help.' There were only a few coins in the hat.
A man walked by. He took a few coins from his pocket and dropped them into the hat. He then took the sign, turned it around, and wrote some words. He put the sign back so that everyone who walked by would see the new words.
Soon the hat began to fill up. A lot more people were giving money to the blind boy. That afternoon the man who had changed the sign came to see how things were. The boy recognized his footsteps and asked, 'Were you the one who changed my sign this morning ? What did you write?'
The man said, 'I only wrote the truth. I said what you said but in a different way..'
What he had written was: 'Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it.'
Do you think the first sign and the second sign were saying the same thing?
Of course both signs told people the boy was blind. But the first sign simply said the boy was blind. The second sign told people they were so lucky that they were not blind. Should we be surprised that the second sign was more effective?
版本二：
It's a beautiful day but I can't see it
There was a blind person on a bench for asking some money for his needs.
He was saying "Please help me. I am a blind person". Unfortunately he was not able to collect enough money for his food.
One Intelligent person gave a little board with some texts to the blind person and said "Do not say anything but keep this board safely with you".
On that very day the blind person could collect more money than he ever thought.
Then What's on the board? It says "It's a beautiful day but I can't see it "
:)
See how it changed the results by expressing the same idea in two different ways. I think we should practice that and apply it to our daily life too.
It's a good attitude a person should have.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=212553008771222&oid=123021407765953&comments
評：文字的力量～why "change your words", then "change your world" being possible? ...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzgzim5m7oU&feature=share
當片中偶然行經而過的神祕女子,俯身翻轉乞丐的紙板,而後將“Ｉ am blind ,please help”改寫為“It's a beautiful day and I can't see it.”
這真是個奇蹟的瞬間^^
事實上,這正是巴修拉空間詩學所說的moment of poetic.
霎時讓人眼光一亮的詩意瞬間,在極短的時間內,大火燎原般的力量延燒並點燃了每一個適逢其會者的“詩意瞬間”........
我隱然看到一股火焰的傳遞～
川流於每一顆被那直入人性深處的“洞見”給照亮的心靈。
於是,這神奇的角落,彷若瞬間漩起一股強大的臨在力量。
就某一個隱微而不可見的奧義而言：這個角落,在這奇蹟的片刻,形成一道與天堂的“連結”（connection）。
銅板與紙鈔,霎時繽紛如雨！
有一股難以抗拒的深沈動力,自人性幽微處被瞬間啓動。
這就是詩的語言所挾帶的強大穿透力：叩問存在,而直入天地之心(touch the core of Being)............................
當那位神祕女子,重新回到這奇蹟發生的角落。
眼眶噙滿淚水的乞丐,困惑地問道：“What did you do to my sign？”
這位酷斃了的女子只是淡然笑道：“I wrote the same ,but in different words.”
我忍不住想及William Bernbach絕美的洞見：
"Nothing is so powerful as an insight into human nature... what compulsions drive a man, what instincts dominate his action... if you know these things about a man you can touch him at the core of his being."
他顯然也握有那把啓動人性存在核心動力的鑰匙,才能有這番深刻見地。
讓我們再度回到那奇蹟似的轉折發生的瞬間。
試著更深層地抉發～
是什麼樣意義下的“文字”,啟動了意識轉換的“邊界經驗”（experience of boundary）？
why "change your words",
then "change your world" being possible?
當片中偶然行經而過的神秘女子,俯身翻轉乞丐的紙板,而後將“Ｉ am blind ,please help”改寫為“It's a beautiful day and I can't see it.”
前者只冰冷地說出所見 ;
後者則更深地以文字引導人窺見那隱藏可見(visable)背後之不可見(invisable)的遺憾,而強烈喚醒了倖存者的悲憫與罪咎意識。
這一刻！俗情知見所制約的“世界”,砉然崩解。
我無法不特別注意到片中行乞角落：
行乞的社會邊緣者,與周遭的年輕笑靨,形成了強烈的反差。
這不就是“世界”的縮影！
海德格所云的世界,就具現在片中一派天真爛漫中流露著事無關己微笑之年輕人的嘴角;
就具現在街頭一張張冷漠、呆滯、麻木、無情、瑣碎、操煩、苦悶、憂傷、殘酷、野心與戲謔的面孔...........
可當詩意瞬間,猝然臨在！
世界砉然崩解。
浮光掠影般潛流意識深層的良知召喚,一時浩然泉湧,洋洋如在！
這就是標註性語言和詩意語言的不同。
前者創造斷裂(crack);後者則創造了連結（connection）。
不同的陳述,說出的只是同一個“事實“嗎？
不！
在現象學看來：沒有客觀的事實,只有繫屬於觀看者“觀物方式”而萬象紛呈之多元面向。
所云“事實”,每決定於觀看者的觀看位置。
這意味：真相是深藏著的！
根本不存在孤調而定於一尊的事實。
或者說,離開了“觀看的方式”與“觀看位置”,就沒有所謂“事實”。
語言,不只是作為達意工具的語言。
語言,在更深的意義上,它顯露了觀看者的“觀看位置”與“觀物方式”。
是把對象隔絕在外而作為認知對象的“知識性觀看”呢？
還是把對象與自己包含在內而作為同命共在之融然流動整體的“存有性觀看”？
前者透過標注與切割行為來界定對象。（迷色遺空,而不見色中之空）
後者不落對象化的界定而接受經驗本質必然函帶的“皺摺性”：那多重“觀看位置”與“歷史記憶”交相摺疊而包攏為一之多元紛呈的流動視域。（即色見空,而見其為真空妙有）
標注性語言用來界定對象,甚至連自己也成為被界定的對象,在這種觀物方式所形成的局戲裡,對象還是對象,你還是你,沒有同情共感的移情作用川流彼此的視野。
詩意語言則不然,它是叩問存在的語言,而非建立知識的語言。深度挖掘並將驚人的情境變異,串聯整合於一系列遙相呼應又充滿深度的隱喻意象,在悖離常軌的反差經驗下,營造了讓人眼睛一亮的瞬間,並在這moment of poetic 帶入一種跳脫俗情知見框架卻又直抵靈魂深處的“凝視”！這凝視瞬間粉碎了標注性觀物方式平板無感、隔靴搔癢與置身事外的冰冷定義,而直接自你內在引發出一種把自己和眼下對象都包攏摺疊在內的深遠迴盪之情。
這就是深於存有自體而不受遮蔽的詩意文字,它不是隔絕所觀物的文字碎片,而是在寂然有感中飽蘊萌生性與綻放性的文字烈焰～
這,才是真正的“詩”：
非關詩學格律制約下華麗的詞藻堆砌........
真正能自意識深處激起綿密深遠迴盪力量的“詩”,只能根植於存有的感應：直叩天地之心................
那大風捲水般席捲而來的強大力量,足以摧枯拉朽地瞬間粉碎一切籠罩局戲中的觀物方式,
並霎時照亮遮隱世界暗處的意識深淵,熠熠含光............
影片故事參閱出處：
版本ㄧ：
'Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it.'
A blind boy sat on the steps of a building with a hat by his feet. He held up a sign which said: 'I am blind, please help.' There were only a few coins in the hat.
A man walked by. He took a few coins from his pocket and dropped them into the hat. He then took the sign, turned it around, and wrote some words. He put the sign back so that everyone who walked by would see the new words.
Soon the hat began to fill up. A lot more people were giving money to the blind boy. That afternoon the man who had changed the sign came to see how things were. The boy recognized his footsteps and asked, 'Were you the one who changed my sign this morning ? What did you write?'
The man said, 'I only wrote the truth. I said what you said but in a different way..'
What he had written was: 'Today is a beautiful day and I cannot see it.'
Do you think the first sign and the second sign were saying the same thing?
Of course both signs told people the boy was blind. But the first sign simply said the boy was blind. The second sign told people they were so lucky that they were not blind. Should we be surprised that the second sign was more effective?
版本二：
It's a beautiful day but I can't see it
There was a blind person on a bench for asking some money for his needs.
He was saying "Please help me. I am a blind person". Unfortunately he was not able to collect enough money for his food.
One Intelligent person gave a little board with some texts to the blind person and said "Do not say anything but keep this board safely with you".
On that very day the blind person could collect more money than he ever thought.
Then What's on the board? It says "It's a beautiful day but I can't see it "
:)
See how it changed the results by expressing the same idea in two different ways. I think we should practice that and apply it to our daily life too.
It's a good attitude a person should have.
{{ article.title }}