神亡怪夢

在胡思亂想的夜晚﹐越打越長﹐心想﹐任由自己放縱一下﹐寫篇滔滔不絕的爛文(真長進)﹔再想﹐做下間隔﹐寫篇牆紙﹐也是種樂趣。這幾天﹐在了無邊際地在尋找﹐想為個沒答案的問題劃個總括。回憶自己以為懂得一切的十來歲時光真的幸福﹐不像現在成了這個摸不著知識邊界的可憐蟲﹐為了無關痛癢的問題去苦惱。哈﹐可能連問題的本身是什麼還未能搞得清清楚楚﹐又怎會找到答案。找到一個答案﹐也只怕會牽起更多的問題。最初原始有人﹐我想﹐解決三餐一宿已佔了大半時間﹐到物質稍為富庶﹐閒下來的人才有時間去胡思亂想。食物過盈﹐產了肥婆。時間過盈﹐成了哲學家﹔閒適的靈知已深入說過這點。

Alice sighed wearily. "I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."
"If you knew Time as well as I do," said the Hatter, "you wouldn't talk about wasting it. It's a him."
"I don't know what you mean," said Alice.
"Of course you don't!" the Hatter said tossing his head contemptuously. "I dare say you never even spoke to Time!"
"Perhaps not," Alice cautiously replied; "but I know I have to beat time when I learn music."
"Ah! That accounts for it," said the Hatter. "He won't stand beating. Now, if you only kept on good terms with him, he'd do almost anything you liked with the clock. For instance, suppose it were nine o'clock in the morning, just time to begin lessons: you'd only have to whisper a hint to Time, and round goes the clock in a twinkling! Half-past one, time for dinner!' " (Alice in Wonderland)

Sir Ernest Gombrich (art historian)寫過﹐實在的世界﹐是由不重複的旋動印像構成的混亂。"is a chaos of swirling impressions that never repeat themselves" (Gombrich 1959:45)。我們每刻﹐在千千萬萬接收的聲和光影中﹐選擇了怎樣去看世界。就算兩個人在經歷著同一件事﹐接收到的訊息﹐中間經過腦袋的運作﹐和反射出來的結果也必有不同。當然﹐同樣地﹐兩人遇了不同的經歷﹐反而產生接近的思想訊號﹐又何嘗不可? 人﹐靠著這類外在因素去界定事物﹐單單想起"蛋"﹐我們便要知硬殼﹐蛋白/黃等因素...但又如在女性母體內的卵﹐明明也是蛋﹐性質和形象就相差很遠﹐孕育下代的細胞。想起了令Descarte 認為不能以經驗來判斷物質的"蠟"。人類用著語言和文字﹐去成為溝通這些不同經歷的渠道。互相去為複雜的現實找尋結構和解釋﹐去為這些經歷訂立程式﹐把新事物分析﹑歸類。人要界定較複雜的事物﹐和表明更深刻的道理﹐中間便要訂立很多指針﹐去把一切事物連結起來。有些事物﹐如石﹑水﹐我們只要向實物指指﹐別人就會明白。你去到任何地方﹐譬如說要買支水﹐只要指一指﹐對方也用手指比劃一下價錢﹐有很多指針已可表達到事情發展的方向。但對於思想概念﹐一句"自由民主社會"就死得啦﹐你試想想﹐點解釋比個五歲知這個概念是什麼? 中間要多少指針方可完滿解釋連結這道理? 我想其實很多成年人也只以為知道這概念﹐可是隨便找兩個人﹐再問問二人"自由民主社會"是什麼﹐就不會得到一樣的答案。如果兩人要深入討論任何話題﹐大前題就是對那話題的基礎思想大家也要有接近的指針﹐方有一個有效的思想溝通。

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."
"I see nobody on the road," says Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes," the king remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!..."

... "Who did you pass on the road?" the king went on, holding out his hand to the Messenger for some hay.
"Nobody," said the messenger.
"Quite right," said the king: "this young lady saw him too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you."
"I do my best," the messenger said in a sullen tone. "I'm sure nobody walks much faster than I do!"
"He can't do that," said the king, "or else he'd have been here first." (Through the looking glass)

因此社會就是從這些溝通之間訂立起來﹐由指向一草一木﹐至所有思想系統的運作﹐也要靠著新的界定和導向。如果世界只得二人存在﹐既可能大家同意世間一切的稱呼和系統﹐也可大家各自各把物件命名自己喜歡的名字。我懷疑也因此﹐神要在三個人之中才能存在﹐因為任何事物﹐有一人動議﹐必定也要一人附和﹐佔了多數(最少2/3)﹐就成為大家所能認證之事﹐是任何社會係統的最基本的單位。三人完全同意的事便變了真理﹐而三人不能有任何同意者則成未可知之事。神﹐就是這個系統的延續﹐因此神也會老﹐也會死﹐也會隨著時間去改變(*1)﹐亦隨著時間以另一個形態重生。

*1: MAN has created gods in his own likeness and being himself mortal he has naturally supposed his creatures to be in the same sad predicament. Thus the Greenlanders believed that a wind could kill their most powerful god, and that he would certainly die if he touched a dog. When they heard of the Christian God, they kept asking if he never died, and being informed that he did not, they were much surprised, and said that he must be a very great god indeed. In answer to the enquiries of Colonel Dodge, a North American Indian stated that the world was made by the Great Spirit. Being asked which Great Spirit he meant, the good one or the bad one, “Oh, neither of them,” replied he, “the Great Spirit that made the world is dead long ago. He could not possibly have lived as long as this.” A tribe in the Philippine Islands told the Spanish conquerors that the grave of the Creator was upon the top of Mount Cabunian. Heitsi-eibib, a god or divine hero of the Hottentots, died several times and came to life again. His graves are generally to be met with in narrow defiles between mountains. When the Hottentots pass one of them, they throw a stone on it for good luck, sometimes muttering, “Give us plenty of cattle.” The grave of Zeus, the great god of Greece, was shown to visitors in Crete as late as about the beginning of our era. The body of Dionysus was buried at Delphi beside the golden statue of Apollo, and his tomb bore the inscription, “Here lies Dionysus dead, the son of Semele.” According to one account, Apollo himself was buried at Delphi; for Pythagoras is said to have carved an inscription on his tomb, setting forth how the god had been killed by the python and buried under the tripod.
The great gods of Egypt themselves were not exempt from the common lot. They too grew old and died. But when at a later time the discovery of the art of embalming gave a new lease of life to the souls of the dead by preserving their bodies for an indefinite time from corruption, the deities were permitted to share the benefit of an invention which held out to gods as well as to men a reasonable hope of immortality. Every province then had the tomb and mummy of its dead god. The mummy of Osiris was to be seen at Mendes; Thinis boasted of the mummy of Anhouri; and Heliopolis rejoiced in the possession of that of Toumou. The high gods of Babylon also, though they appeared to their worshippers only in dreams and visions, were conceived to be human in their bodily shape, human in their passions, and human in their fate; for like men they were born into the world, and like men they loved and fought and died.
"Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941). The Golden Bough. 1922. XXIV. The Killing of the Divine King § 1. The Mortality of the Gods "

在上次探訪倉兄時﹐我粗略聽了他的一套理論﹐那翻大道理﹐分開來說﹐我很多也能認同﹐可是﹐合在一起﹐我想﹐我還未能完全聽得明白﹐甚至對之抱著極其懷疑的態度。不單對我想的事構不了幫助﹐結果反而越想越遠﹐越想越亂。我想﹐如果我沒理解錯誤﹐這便是我相對的看法:「智慧和肉體也是有著自己的界限的。思想和精神雖活於過去﹐亦可自由透過語言文字而穿梭時空﹔不過肉體的存在卻是這一刻﹐沒有這刻的存在﹐所有思想將不可構成﹐理念和實質始終有別﹐而離身軀之說則不可知。 空間要做成能量轉換需要由外界注入大量能源﹐可分化而不可回聚﹐故有宇宙擴張論﹐要改變也是能量的交換而非精神的操控﹐我相信不是種可逆轉操控的能量。當然﹐也許﹐亦是我俗身未能參破天外玄機。」

"That is not quite right," said the Caterpillar. "Not quite right, I'm afraid," said Alice, timidly: "some of the words have got altered."
"It is wrong from beginning to end," said the caterpillar; and there was silence for some minutes. (AW)

說起什麼聚會﹐什麼煮酒﹐嘻﹐其實到不到也不成問題﹐橫豎也只是瘋子的聚會。我也想著﹐對客人無禮﹐到底是主人的問題﹐還是客人的問題? 甚麼的客人﹐才該用窟頭掃把打走? 自己呢? 自己如果發謬論﹐又是否該伸自己一腳?

The table was a large one, but the three were all crowded together at one corner of it: "No room! No room!" they cried out when they saw Alice coming. "There's plenty of room!" said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large arm-chair at one end of the table.
"Have some wine," the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.
Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. "I don't see any wine," she remarked.
"There isn't any," said the March Hare.
"Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it," said Alice angrily.
"It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited," said the March Hare.
"I didn't know it was your table," said Alice; "it's laid for a great many more than three."

寫到這裡﹐無錯﹐連一開始的問題還未說到﹐結果﹐還是不寫了﹐也厭倦了。人由生下的一刻便要開始放棄﹐要不斷在世上放棄沒能力捉緊的事物﹐要放棄自己天資不足的範籌。不斷做出選擇﹐在眾多道路中也只許行一條﹐像如果選擇出了freeway exit﹐便很大機會難以走回頭。如Heraclitus 說﹐你不可能兩次踏入同樣的河﹐所有經驗﹐也是全新的經驗。"Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν. We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not." 在這寬闊的河﹐能遇也緣﹐能愛也緣﹐能恨也緣﹐所以對著布甸的廢話也可成對話。

It spoke in a thick, suety sort of voice, and Alice hadn't a word to say in reply: she could only sit and look at it and gasp.
"Make a remark," said the Red Queen: "it's ridiculous to leave all the conversation to the pudding!"

看得到這裡的人﹐送多你幾句:

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here." (AW)

無名火起

林忌短評：名人的無恥與雙重標準 林忌
中國文化的理性與感性 林忌
回應林忌《中國文化的理性與感性》 倉海君
回應倉海君的「評價」 林忌
「中國文化」的存在 Lestsariel
感性式屌你 道士
回應「感性式 x 你」 林忌
中國文化欠了甚麼？ 舒爾賽
文化五月 倉海君

對於此事暫不再予評﹐輯錄作記。近好幾年來﹐可真首次為篇文章動怒﹐真未見所謂學者混帳如斯。本來以為自己已寫得直接了當﹑淺顯易懂﹐但對方忽然就扯開話題﹐忽然就幾個無聊問題﹐最斃就夾習抄了有些史實﹑有些人物一塊兒掟過來﹐加埋有時就話被欺壓﹐有時又話對客怠慢...心底那怒火真的壓不住。社會就看著這樣荒謬的人寫荒謬事﹐哈﹐人世諷刺之處無不能遇﹐鮮過於此。讀了這麼多哲學書﹐發覺對著對手全不管用﹐也證明自己的功力火候還欠一大截。

秀才遇著兵﹐我問你﹐怎跟自己不說道理卻要人說清道理的人﹐去說得清道理? 你說得清﹐對方就看不見﹑聽不懂﹐執著一兩點無可議論之事﹐又或已離題萬丈之事去質問﹐又或要從他架起的錯誤架構出發。輸打贏要﹐我以為自己已夠流氓﹐看了這種面皮七呎厚的無賴﹐自己又頓如謙謙書生...

病毒入侵

上星期六晚電腦揩了個有毒嘅file﹐買大送細﹐十幾隻病毒幫我逐隻裝﹐自上年Norton過期就一直揾隻叫Norman嘅antivirus頂檔﹐點知隻野頂唔住病毒﹐十幾廿隻內中了七﹑八隻﹐Quarantine都唔壓得晒﹐結果唯有死死氣氣download隻McAfee + MSDefender急救(McAfee好像scan得好點﹐但Norton又好似delete得乾淨點﹐不過近年對電腦無乜太大興趣﹐有得用就好)。洗得四隻﹐reboot後check到話無晒毒仍覺有點不妥﹐CPU 又用得太多﹐比我對一對registry原來仍有餘孽﹐在windows,system,system32各有得著﹐還有些是改了XP systems 內的 Prefetch﹐變咗boot機load explorer.exe 時就跳咗落個有餡嘅 .pf file(有些人提議delete prefetch files﹐不過正常不必這樣做﹐因為XP windows 係唔係都會自己generate 同 delete 這類files﹐定期delete也不會加快運作速度)。清埋後仍有一隻唔知係邊(太多亂碼費時揾)﹐用MSConfig 噤住唔load就算數﹐真麻煩﹐搞了半天。現在的電腦﹐唔裝隻防毒軟件﹐就好似去非洲叫雞唔戴套 - 實中絕症﹔那些色情網仍是紅燈區﹐屬高危地帶(嘻﹐我不否認我會surf porn site﹐不過這次卻無辜由其他途徑引入)。挨不到半年又要裝過部機﹐遲點吧。

其實人腦每天收集這麼多資訊﹐有幾多是廢物﹐又有幾多如病毒般侵害著人的思想? 如果單單是無用的資料﹐其實多少也無乜所謂﹐還豎Harddrive有大把space﹐是多一件唔多﹐少一件唔少吧?(人常話人腦容量大﹐不過我一直認為少數人會load harddrive 來生活的﹐通常也只靠個RAM﹐食飯吹水便算) 真的嗎? 可能有些是的﹐如娛樂新聞﹐現今傳媒都每日炒作﹐是真是假﹐我相信影響也不深遠。馬經有山埃貼士﹐download咗也最多破破財﹐唔好好用腦process下決定自己的行為﹐中招都係抵死。不過什麼因素才使人失常? 農曆年前寫過篇「越思想界限的暴力 盡人性邊緣的血腥」﹐講的也是瘋子吧? 如看過Nietzsche 後想殺人﹐引起犯罪動機的又算不算思想上的病毒? 有個人和你吵架﹐你心內興起上來有了犯罪的衝動﹐那種是自我保護還是思覺失調﹐該如何界定﹑取捨或平衡?

四月二日﹐麗江導遊徐敏超﹐和當地導遊爭執後﹐拿刀斬傷了二十人。後來犯人清醒過後﹐只知犯案當時腦子只剩空白一遍﹐他認定自己當時的情況危險﹐慌起來只要擋在前面的他就斬﹐開出了條血路。嬰兒﹐小孩無一幸免﹐對那群受害者來說只能說是交著惡運﹐出現在不該出現的地方。人生﹐重要的事﹐往往也只取決於一秒﹑一念之間﹐無論說成機緣﹑運氣或天意﹐也只能是種在無奈中對自己的安慰。(事件發生前早三天﹐3/31﹐才剛有個女導遊被打的新聞。)這資訊也是種誘因吧? (這段新聞﹐我們看後頂多:"啐!真變態。"﹐不過對去同樣地方工作的導遊來說﹐這便種下恐懼的禍根。)一刻的失控﹐就是魔鬼的解放﹐把恐懼無限度的擴張。正如別人講厭了的徐步高﹐也是痴咗好耐(自大成狂吧!)。不過無論係急性嘅temporary insanity 或是 psychopath﹐就是社會上無可避免的病毒。可能我們在長大中﹐每個人的體內也潛伏了這種瘋癲的因子﹐只不過如keep住洗下機﹐訓覺defrag下個腦﹐不被社會quarantine嘅就叫正常。看著那些感染了的sector﹐永遠永遠封實至死﹐淒涼之餘還又有點好笑。如果在外國﹐我相信這導遊要打贏insanity plea*嘅機會都幾大(在中國﹐唔打靶便執到了)﹐相反徐步高就算分不清自己的行為對錯﹐都絕對有足夠意識知道自己在做什麼**﹐所以如果唔死也必定入罪。哈﹐不過如果唔死﹐他可能仍在做著他那個乖兒子﹑好警察的角色﹐又點會給社會指指點點﹐為家人帶來麻煩。(不是在同情﹐只不過覺得社會的荒謬既是這件事的誘因﹐亦是這件事的結局﹐對很多人來說只是場用人命寫成的鬧劇﹐不過就算知道自己身處這荒謬中﹐難道又可改變和避免什麼嗎? 繼續﹐繼續...瘋癲的延續......)

*:One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "Twinkie defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion" and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.
**:可閱Insanity defense: M'Naghten Rule 和 "irresistible impulse".

黑色星期五說恐佈片

最近看過幾套電影Apocalypto﹐The Reaping﹐The Pursuit of Happyness﹐三套也算不過不失﹐未至於差﹐但又沒太大驚喜。Apocalypto 的血腥﹐也只不過是原始人的討伐和求生﹐雖然和歷史有出入﹐不過跑跑跳跳﹐作為一出戲﹐有足夠的動作去捉住人的注意力。上次和倉海君談起恐怖片﹐我且又粗略整理一下還有印象的恐怖片(還有﹐那次和倉兄你提起的失蹤片是93年重拍(1988)的 The Vanishing)。自己覺得最近幾年有些極度血腥的電影﹐在科技越趨發達的情況下畫面越來越逼真﹐有些場面的確令人反胃(雖然還未有一套影響我胃口)。不過同時﹐又覺現在的所謂恐怖﹐只不過是視覺上的突出﹐卻失去令人從心底驚慄的劇情﹑思緒。如Hostel (2006), Saw (2004), House of 1000 Corpses (2003), Wrong Turn (2003), Wolf Creek (2005), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (06重拍﹐1974), The Hills Have Eyes (06重拍﹐1977)。這類"走入孤立無援的荒野/環境﹐逐個慢慢折磨/瘧殺"不少﹐不過隨了怪物不同﹐也只是追呀﹐叫呀﹐血呀﹐走呀(嘻!不過有幾多套恐怖片不是這樣?)。

今年07年﹐我已說過Hannibal: Rising。The Reaping 有較重的宗教意味﹐隨了特技﹐我覺得這片很普通(其實特技也只是普普通通)﹐主要就重複下聖經中摩西時降下埃及的十害﹐和 Mel Gibson 嘅 Signs 一樣﹐有點無聊。還有興趣看看的是前一陣子的 The messengers 和 The hill have eyes II (1977年的重拍)。06年的Silent Hill由遊戲變了電影﹐我覺得不錯。到Saw III已變得有點普通﹐不過還過得去。Covenant是套十來歲才會覺得好看的幼稚片﹐係堆年青主角還算靚﹐所以我先看得完整套片。Final Destination 第三炒﹐隨了血腥和堆不同的主角外﹐不要對故事有任何奢想。Grudge2有陳冠希﹐由日片改編﹐有幾個鬼妹似乎搞到有點不倫不類﹐個藍色嘅細路和個長髮嘅女鬼﹐跳出來一刻咪驚嚇囉﹐不過這類戲有時夜晚睇得多都真係會有點心寒。Them 如果無記錯好像還可以﹐不過有點像Sixth Sense, The Others 的橋段。還可能想看的有Severance﹐The wicker man(73﹐06重拍)。05的The Skeleton Key劇情懶有轉折﹐不過我卻喜歡。Ring就係日片嘅貞子。House of wax 重拍就比原片逼真﹐不過這概念﹐就是我所認為是恐怖片的精神﹐假得太接近人性的變態和恐怖。2001 Maniacs 我好像看過﹐不過垃圾到唔記得劇情﹐只知一家像馬戲團的畸形人在殺一群學生﹐和hills have eyes/wrong turn 一類又有點似罷?

還有印象較好的有:見鬼10(只喜歡內買書的笑話(*1))﹐(2004)Alien vs. Predator, (2003)Underworld, Jeepers Creepers, Identity, 大逃殺(I/II), (2002)The Mothman Prophecies, They, 28 Days Later。已經太多了﹐再舊點的雖然可能特技較差﹐不過有很多卻曾經搞到我夜晚廁所都唔敢去(我廿歲前都有時幾細膽)﹐現在也覺好笑。咦!我現在才發覺The Rocky Horror Picture Show居然也入horror類﹐哈! 不知是否看得太多﹐像有點麻木了﹐其實來來去去﹐最多咪死。隨了有時覺得核凸和比跳出來那刻嚇一嚇﹐恐怖片我已經很久無見乜新橋段了。有些恐怖片卻很利害﹐對我最大影響的是Jaws大白鯊﹐自從看過後﹐我遊船河也不會再在深海的地方下水。

*1:主角在書店用貴價錢買下古書﹐老闆千叮萬囑﹐揭到最後一頁必遭不幸。結果靈驗了﹗最後一頁標了書原來只值很低的價錢。

吳清源

金庸先生(*1)在《"中"的精神》一書題到:「古今中外我最佩服兩個人，古人是范蠡，今人是吳清源。在兩千年的中國圍棋史上，恐怕沒有第二位棋士足與吳清源先生並肩。這並不但由於他的天才，更由於他將這以爭勝負為唯一目標的藝術，提高到了極高的人生境界。」那天和左兄吃飯之際﹐提起電影節中我最想看的是與吳先生同名的電影"吳清源"﹐在現今的圍棋界中﹐如果未聽過吳清源三個字的人﹐算不上懂得圍棋。(哈哈!當然單單聽過名字的﹐也不可能因此而成為高手。) 吳先生一生傳奇﹐關於他的事可填滿不少書﹐所以三言兩語說不完﹐不過也想粗略說說。

1928 - 吳先生比現代那些小孩可算遲學棋藝了﹐七歲方始在家從父學棋。一九二八年十月，十四歲的吳清源到達了日本，同年十二月，他與本因坊名人(圍棋界的頂級名函)秀哉下測試棋，亦是他在日本的第二盤棋，吳清源受讓二子，以當時不被讚成的星位新佈局開始，結果以四目勝出。據說，當時八段(最高為九段)的棋手被秀哉名人讓二子都經常敗北。秀哉名人並不怎麼表揚年輕人的棋，但他卻評價這局棋是「二子的經典之局」。

1929 - 六月期間﹐對著個高一段的對手﹐他下了盤怪棋。他執黑子﹐第一子便違反常理大條條的打在正中間﹐然後別人西行一步﹐他就東邊同樣位置﹐亦步亦雛跟到足一足。其實這類模仿棋蘇軾﹑朱元璋都在行﹔不過未見過如此下棋的對手卻嚇到不知所措﹐對手一面深思熟慮﹐他卻隨手輕鬆跟著走﹐情況如何尷尬可想而知。一直走到第65步方變著﹐雖然走錯了﹐結果也是輸了﹐不過卻標誌了他的與別不同﹐不會聽聽話話的呆著走。

1933 - 五年之後，十九歲的吳清源再次與秀哉名人對局，那年秀哉名人剛好六十歲，該局被稱為花甲紀念對局﹐後來也成了二十世紀其中一局最具影響力的棋。當時吳清源的新佈局「三三、星、天元」是與本因坊的傳統下法背道而馳的，三三在本因坊一門稱為「鬼手」，是禁著，下了禁著是會被逐出師門的，因此日本棋界對這局棋十分關注，它象徵著天才明星後起之秀對傳統皇者發起的挑戰。這局棋終於下了整整三個半月才終結，對局其間秀哉名人一到困難的局面就推諉說頭痛，然後馬上就宣佈「打掛」(即中斷比賽)，由於當時的比賽制度，「打掛」是不需要事先將下一手棋寫下，所以有傳聞名人的弟子們每天都聚集在名人家中，研究對局的實戰棋譜，商討對策﹐變了一人和整個本因坊一門人的角力。這局棋到了159手之前都是名人苦戰，形勢並不樂觀，但他第160手下出了妙手，最後奕至252手結束，名人以二目勝出。種種跡象顯示，這局世人矚目的棋局並不尋常，更先後有多人指出第160手是名人的弟子發現的。吳清源雖然輸了該局棋，但他卻沒有感到悲傷，在那一時期的他認為段位賽對他更為重要。如有興趣﹐可看這局棋。

1939年 - 開始與木谷實進行十番棋賽﹐亦稱"鐮倉十番棋"。自本因坊秀哉引退﹐當年以木谷實為棋壇第一人﹐結果吳以六勝四負贏了比賽。當中有盤血棋:「只見木谷六段的黑棋打下第157手後，鮮血從鼻孔中流出。於是，房內紙隔扇和玻璃門急忙被打開。走廊裏，限用時間已所剩無幾的木谷七段，悶悶不樂地躺倒著，頭上不停地用毛巾冷敷，並不時地叫喊：“對方考慮的時候，我也想去看看！”於是，一時攔擋不住，他便強打硬撐地坐到棋盤前，不過只聽他說了句“不行！”便又踉踉蹌蹌地回到走廊躺下……那盤棋木谷敗了，而當時吳清源因太過投入，沒有聽到工作人員“比賽是否暫停”的提醒，繼續落子後，輿論一時大嘩，吳清源先生當時遂不幸背負了“惡魔”的稱謂。」當真是痴迷之最高境界﹐物我兩忘。

三十八歲訪問台灣，被封為「大國手」，並與時值少年之林海峰下了一場指導棋。林海峰後亦東渡學棋，成為吳清源門下弟子。四十七歲時在東京車禍受傷，往後數年為後遺症所苦。五十歲時在名人循環賽中嚐到八連敗，弟子林海峰則在名人賽戲劇性地挑戰成功，榮登名人。新獲本因坊頭銜的張栩受業於林海峰，是吳清源的再傳弟子。吳清源車禍受傷後仍活躍棋壇數十年，五十八歲時並挑戰十段位階，七十歲才宣告引退。現今九十三歲。棋士沈君山(*2)說:「吳清源、木谷實、林海峰、曹薰鉉、聶衛平等五位。這五位中後面四位分別在日本、台灣、韓國、中國大陸的圍棋發展上有代表性的貢獻，而吳清源是世界性的，他對圍棋創新的貢獻是劃時代的，不侷限於一區一國。」傳奇的一生﹐只是在別人眼中的虛名﹐只要自己認為自己活得精彩過﹐人生又有何憾? 正是「九死南荒吾無恨，兹遊奇絕冠平生。」(*3) 如果還要說其他吳先生的三三﹑星﹑新布局﹑大雪崩裡曲等妙作﹐則寫多十篇也寫不完﹐況且自己棋藝未入流﹐許多精妙之處未能心領神會﹐只好坐在一旁仰慕﹐看看傑出的棋譜。不說﹐不說﹐又已說了一大篇。

吳先生的棋譜

---------------------------------------------------------------
*1:金庸在《天龍八部》曾提到“嘔血譜”。人言古代國手劉仲甫在驪山遇一老婦，紋枰對坐間，自詡棋藝天下第一的劉仲甫竟大敗虧輸，當場嘔血數升，此後他自己錄下該局棋譜，史稱《嘔血譜》。歷史上最著名的血譜，還得算“因徹吐血之局”。那是1837年第12世本因坊丈和與安井家的得意弟子赤星因徹下爭棋，棋局進行至246手，因徹大敗，見爭無可爭，有辱師門，因徹突然間仆倒在棋枰之上，大口吐血。是局的兩個月後，本來患有肺結核的因徹病故。這也是歷史上最悽慘的“血之局”。
*2:沈君山: 1932年出生於浙江餘姚，曾任國立清華大學校長，是知名的天文物理學家，也是國際著名的圍棋高手，擁有日本業餘六段和中國圍棋六段證書。在美留學期間，他曾連續贏得三屆（1958-1960）美國本因坊圍棋比賽冠軍。1973年回台灣後，曾擔任應昌期圍棋基金會董事長，以及中華民國圍棋協會會長。
*3:《六月二十夜渡海》蘇軾
參橫斗轉欲三更﹐苦雨終風也解睛。
雲散月明誰點綴﹐天容海色本澄清。
空餘魯叟乘桴意﹐粗識軒轅奏樂聲。
九死南荒吾不恨，兹游奇絕冠平生。

魂遊十日記 清明拜左師

自己喜歡無拘無束的生活(我買了包廣告話可令人無拘無束嘅棉花﹐後來才發覺對男性來說不大管用。嘻!(*1))﹐但同時熱愛繁碌到不可開交的日子﹐因為辦完事後的一剎總有種虛假的成功感﹐可能和急屎後能得到排山倒海的解放之舒暢差不多罷(看過某文章說: 食煙的快感﹐在於令自己窒息﹐然後吸入新鮮空氣的快感(看後﹐相反覺﹐這也真不錯﹐我忍兩分鐘氣可不可有同樣感覺呢?(最近和親友吃飯﹐提起他們相識的某朋友(不吸煙)五十幾歲的教師肺癌死了﹐人其實要走的就會走。)))。沒有忙碌﹐遊閒總會有天變得沒意義﹐所以做要做得盡﹐玩也要玩過夠﹐沒了其中一種行為﹐另外一樣可能也會逐漸變得沒意義(*2)。

最近一筆也不寫﹐和我一日寫幾篇的原因一樣 — 就是沒有原因﹐喜歡就所以。時間﹑心情﹑意欲﹐當各方面也配合﹐要出現的就會出現﹐況且假期不出外逛逛總像有點對不起自己﹐旺角﹑沙田﹑葵興﹑香港仔﹑寶琳。至於倉海兄最近也無寫文章﹐據聞卻是因為重整宇宙的反效果 — 執得太靚﹐看書就已滿足。嘻﹐人要懶起上來﹐哪怕找不到籍口? 何況根本寫blog就是件閒事。

清明那天約了倉海兄一同由旺角出發過海到左大狀雅居打搞一下﹐另外舒兄也有到會。在左兄忙於下廚時﹐和倉海君在胡扯﹐提起恐怖片﹐又提到食人﹐和販賣屍體的合法性﹐其中又扯到件1884年的案例(*3)。左兄大展拳腳﹐弄了三味: 芋頭炆雞﹑煙肉炒芥蘭和辣汁清蒸豆腐。雞是煮得耐了點﹐不過整體來說﹐手藝著實不錯。嘻﹐說起來慚愧﹐印象中我到目前為止煮過給倉海君吃的也只是個公仔麵。

*1:不要發傻﹐當然在說笑。
*2:想起美國當年一個朋友﹐今天連名字也記不請楚了﹐日本籍﹐他老父好像是某財團的主席﹐洗錢如倒水般出。他那架改裝得閃亮的車總是奪目耀眼﹐但他卻沒有別人想像的幸福﹐他老爸也從沒怪過他終日就在飆車 - 因為廿幾歲仔就得末期癌症﹐怎樣死也是兩﹑三年內的事﹐他喜歡車﹐就喜歡好了。自己對速度感覺不大﹐通常快車我是不驚的﹐可是卻永遠不會坐他的車。因為我笑著罵他駕的‧根本‧就是個在移動著的名貴棺材。這麼多年也沒聯絡了﹐我到今天也常在猜想﹐到底他是在車禍中還是在病床上去的。
*3:我一直也以為判決是無罪﹐不過原來是判死刑後得到女皇的赦免﹐改判六個月監禁。很多時這類判決也值得一讀: "It must not be supposed that in refusing to admit temptation to be an excuse for crime it is forgotten how terrible the temptation was; how awful the suffering; how hard in such trials to keep the judgment straight and the conduct pure. We are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy. But a man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse, though he might himself have yielded to it, nor allow compassion for the criminal to change or weaken in any manner the legal definition of the crime. It is therefore our duty to declare that the prisoners' act in this case was wilful murder, that the facts as stated in the verdict are no legal justification of the homicide; and to say that in our unanimous opinion the prisoners are upon this special verdict guilty, of murder." R. v. Dudley and Stephens ([1884] 14 QBD 273 DC)