梦醒10分

前言-预言（童年，种下的因，梦和现实的界限开始模糊） 前言-愿望（流星、愿望、超越平常体验的来自更大世界的不可逆的引力） 第一个梦-少年 第一个梦-旅途、列车上朦胧听到的音乐（被拉上了一轨列车，困惑的开始，脱离母体带来的不安全感，单向性的时间，自身的成长，少年。音乐是时间的具象，是人类对于时间最直观的感觉，某种创造随着低沉的古典乐一起走到终结，或开始了） 第一个梦-排练（梦是现实的演练，还是现实是梦的演练？戏剧感的爵士音乐，“do a bit slightly out of tune”） 第一个梦-现实（你到站了，被抛向彼处，毫无经验但有一些好奇，电话线仿佛脐带，联通了你和你当地的朋友，一个黑色眼影的姑娘穿着一身黑，坐在画面正中央，宛如命运女神，你回避了如此强烈的眼神，就像自己的秘密被看穿了。莫名其妙被好心人劝上车，但他开始像你倾售价值观：“少说些套话，行程是不需要旁白的”，而他做的恰好相反，呱啦呱啦说个不停都是些肤浅表面的东西，急于表明自身立场显得“独特”，就像他的车，就像大众传媒，虽然不会放过任何宣传自己的机会，但他懦弱伪善不敢做出任何实质有帮助的行为，一个一直沉默的乘客决定了你该下车了，“3streets 2blocks 1corner”，321，你该滚了。也许只是让司机闭嘴，去哪？他不会关心，就像一个只关心自己利益的政客。 【事实上，导演不仅把自己演进了电影，还把电影本身演了进去，Linklater 饰演的乘客就是导演，这整个难以醒来的梦的导演，演员（也就是观众，我们大家都是那个青涩的小伙子）是自愿参与的，只要你还在看，你就无法醒过来。】 第一个梦-命运（朦胧长大的青年的你，遭受现实重击。没有方向不会独立思考的那个“你”，死了，而且死的很没有尊严） ================================================= 第二个梦-梦（新灵魂吸取了教训，你来到了大学学习知识） 第二个自己-存在与责任（存在和责任都是物质层面的，都应该是实实在在的东西而不是概念，都应该被施行而不是做脑力体操。“做出选择，承担责任”，不要怨天尤人，“不要把自己看成众多因素的牺牲品”【体制、种族、父母、性别等等】，生活要靠自己去创造，这是你的责任，了解这一切也是青年的你的责任。） 第二个自己-创造、语言与感受（“创造来源于不完美”，语言可能起源于超越自我，想要与他人建立联系的欲望，重点不是单词的发音或拼写，这种符号系统，或者更深入一些，是“让不同的人达到同感”，仅仅物质上的满足是不够的，人类还渴望着被理解，还渴望着超越，你又对自身多了一层认识） 第二个自己-过场（主人公进入教室、敲门拜访、穿行不息得追逐着知识和不同的见解，学习着概念，积累着，他的眼神不再是迷惑着，变得在消化在思索，他开始有点小小的自信） 第二个自己-新人类（在过去，进化是“群体性”的、为了“生存”的、“竞争”的、“被动”的，而现在呢，我们可以观察到，进化的速度越来越快，爆炸性不可预测的方向，也越来越偏向个体自发的需求，在此形成的新人类又成为新的进化螺旋的开始，直至到达某种顶峰，甚至可能改写当下视为公理的规则，也将赋予我们更良好的品格。有些理想化，但谁知道未来呢？） 第二个自己-回到住所（构建出了一座属于自己的房子，重新获得了安全感，音乐响起，个人认知上了一个崭新的层次，超越了从前的自我，你现在不局限于你个人的体验了，可你还不知道即将面对的是什么） ================================================= 第三个自己-禁忌和死亡（飞翔只能持续一会儿，最终我们回到现实，触及到了不可避免的禁忌，一个老大哥开始唠叨一些过去你能感觉到却没有能力表达的“社会黑暗面”，死亡、国难财、财阀政治等等，这些似乎无法改变的事实，这些被固定的未来，就像即将来到的老大哥的死一样压在你的心头，老大哥践行了自己的反抗，他走了，但给社会给你都留下了一个问题。你不再是从前的自己，你发现自己的命运与他人息息相关，你已经是社会人了） 第三个自己-超验、共同遗产和本能（音乐响起，一对青年男女在性事完毕后，也许回忆起了高潮时那种世界大同的感觉，谈论起了濒死体验，而由谈论引发的猜想又导向自身，我还是“我”吗，也许更准确的问题是，我是“我的感知”吗？前世，转世，“somehow i mean reincarnation is just a poetic expression of well collective memories really is. ”，我们继承下来的不只是这一世的体验，甚至可以追溯到生命体能够记忆那时（细胞记忆？），这种数十亿年的趋利避害形成了一种天生的“本能”，这种“本能”是超验的，无论时间距离。很好，你发现，潜意识里、本能里，“你”不仅与“他人”息息相关，“你”就是一个“人”，整个人类群体似乎就是一整个生命体） 第三个自己-自由意志（我们真的比牢狱中的囚犯更自由吗？嘿，清秀的主人公认识到人类大同似乎又回到了学校，倾听着困扰着一个科学家（？）的哲♂学♂问题：刨去基本的经典物理规则、数十亿年的记忆所灌制的“本能”、文化家庭背景，我们还剩多少选择的自由？【以下有不熟悉的内容，总结下教授的发言】如果这些物理规则是如此不可违抗，那么我们所谓的历史，所谓的发展不就是必然的结果吗，一切就像规则的叠加 1+1+1 这样运作下去了，一切都是可以被计算的？经典物理不行的话那么量子力学呢，教授觉得如果我们的“自由”是基于一种完全无序的机制的话，那还不如第一种一眼看到头的未来呢（经典言论“上帝不掷骰子”）。有没有真正基于“我”当下觉知从而做出选择的不受以前经验也不受经典物理规律影响更不是一种抽风似的毫无逻辑关联做出选择的那种自由？这位科学家似乎想要证明这种可能性。） ================================================= 第四个自己-潜意识与主人格之争 不谈那么不自由的自由了，退一步，我们承认有这种主人格可以做出”自由“的选择，但是潜意识仍然在暗处伺机而动。哪个会占上风呢？ 现实中一位公放大喇叭发泄自己对于体制不满的中年男子似乎同样渴求着自由，情绪随着面部的充血也直线上升直至高潮，和性欲相通的本能似乎完全主导了他。 “从负面出发的问责，就只是我们对虚无自愿的顺从罢了。一旦你承认了那冲动，这种认同是会传染的，它毫无限制得繁殖着这种认同。如果你认同了某种冲动，那就准备迎接那所有的吧。”老人似乎永远不会让冲动主导局面，他应该有着严于律己的一生。 黑人说 ：“当下的主流反而就是从边缘、从深渊去探索那些触及核心的隐秘，接受自身的脆弱，品尝、感受那种独特，汲取其中的养分，你的主人格和潜意识间的分界模糊了，尝试去达到一种更大的和谐，而借助这种体验从而进一步打开个人和宇宙连接的大门，在此间你感觉到的每分每秒都不再是空虚无意义的了，在此，自我、协调与独一无二从最根源生出。你就是它，珍珠居住在蚌肉一般，你可以感觉到宇宙仿佛是一个生命，而时间就是它的心跳。”感觉已经入禅了，自然的高峰体验绝对是无比美妙的，思考分辨是不是主人格什么的都已经太慢了，你只能感知。） ================================================= 第五个自己-作为个人所经历的时间对人格的塑造 （小时候的我和现在的我根本没有啥共同性嘛～几乎每四年人体的细胞就全部更新了一遍，我和小时候的我还有啥相同？也许只有 DNA 和对自我的认同保存了下来。） 黑猩猩：我们做的不过是一件又一件重复的事情，甚至是重复“重复”这件事情，因为单调，因为数得清的选择 酒吧，无聊故事，“良好的武装是对暴行最好的防御”，无聊到死，你为什么不去死，结果死了两个。 广告歌曲中的歌词“Now i'm free to see the world” 第六个自己-梦，you're your own remixer，构建自己的宇宙 lucid-Louis，关灯，控制梦境 第七个自己-电影 holy mom ent 第七个自己-感觉 一个感觉总比时间快一步的人，一个活了两倍年龄的人 第七个自己-礼仪机制 发心，我们需要真实的情感，从心底涌发的，你不是一个其他，而是我想要和你交流的你，不是谁都行，只是你。 表演与生活 表演是什么？表演就是生活。你只能在事件上、或者表情或者什么别的表面上去模仿， 梦里的人物将自己想了解想知道想说的按做梦人的暗示说了出来，但这不对，做梦人已经知道了这些，那为什么还需要梦呢？为什么会做梦呢？梦又是什么？这里不需要什么科学的解释，这里的梦更多是自指的，而非身体上的一种机能或冲动，我想弄清这对于我有什么意义，而不是做出什么普适的解释， 参与者和观察者-永恒的矛盾 测不准 I would say that life understand is life lived.这也是一个自指，但这种永恒的矛盾能够得到解释吗，或者至少给出一个自洽的假说也行啊，爆炸头说了一个他的认识：“And as one realizes that one is a dream figure in another person's dream,that is self-awareness.”分明可以感觉到，在这种解释下，宇宙、自我、记忆、梦开始循环起来，谁是第一个造梦者已经不重要了，一切都在循环，而片中的小伙子确实是真实存在的，他就是导演脑中诞生的、真实的虚幻。 梦境会将你自己显示给你 as the pattern gets more intricate and subtle,being swept along is no longer enough. 而在此时，船长和那个政客就像两个先知 是你定义了你自己，就像你感知了你的梦境，时间是怎样作用在你的身上，梦已经对你说完了暂时要讲的，你得给它一个回应了。梦境就像你置身的音乐，你在其中，你能感知那音乐，但你却又不是那音乐，你是舞者，你随着那音乐起舞，或者你又“看穿”了音乐的动机，随着自身的节奏起舞，但无论如何，你得回应那音乐，而不是伫立在原地，一切虽然不像机器那么精确的反应，但那是氛围的调动，味觉的协调，虽然慢一些，但是，是整个的，不在任何别的地方别的时间，就在此时此刻，氛围，回应。 时间-幻觉-难以醒来的梦-死亡-预言-结局 在最后一段，导演把所有要素都推到了一起，导演将自己也塞进了这个梦中，作为全知的观察者，他告诉了他的造物一切的真相，幻觉，他也告诉了了他的观众相对的真相，电影。wake up, you know you should, it's easy. 小伙子回到了哪里呢，又会被谁捕捉进梦境还是开始了自己的造梦之旅呢？无从得知，但亲爱的观众们，你们该从梦中清醒了。 导演一开始就把影片的宗旨亮了出来，“重要的不是画笔的多少，而是那些颜色和线条，也不是套话，不是框架，不是系统，就是感受”。 所以，无论有没有看懂这部电影不重要，其中的乱七八糟的理论不重要，重要的还是你自己的生活，你自己的感受，这部电影有触动到你，这就够了。

摇晃的城市，虚浮的建筑，或明或暗的灯光，漂浮的桌子，抽象化的人物，带着魔幻色彩与不真实感，构成了半梦半醒的人生。

想要传达的主题大概是人生如一梦，人生便是由迷离的梦与清醒构成的，人行于世，相逢即是有缘，我们的主角没有姓名，姓名又有何用，的确，在浮生一梦的状态下，姓名只是一个代号，而真正有意义的是人本身，我们跟着主角走过一个又一个真实或虚幻的场景，不断的做梦，清醒，做梦复又清醒，陷入奇妙的循环。

形式是表达思想的一种手段，动画化的人物，粗犷的线条，不加细修，大块粗糙的色彩，不甚精细的细节，与日常稳固相反的摇晃，不完美的效果反而是这部电影的完美，也是魅力所在。

跟着主角踏上梦的旅程，遇到奇怪的人和事，然后由梦中的危险情景一下子醒来，采取的是典型的由梦中清醒的模式。清醒片刻，不知何时就又进入一个又一个的梦境，梦境中出现最多的场景是与人交谈，交谈对象是哲学家，历史学家，人类学家，而这些人讲述的道理能够听懂却理解不了，让人云里雾里的。或者是非主角的两个人在谈话，设计的大多是人生、生命之类的大问题。一度以为是现实的时候，主角又从梦中清醒。

电影的后半部分与心理学家关于梦的解析有异曲同工之妙：梦与死亡的密切关系，梦境中的情境与现实生活中发生的尤其相似，梦境的联结等都让人思考。

让我冷汗涔涔的是关于解释如何从梦中清醒的那一部分，主角与人会面，谈到梦境中的开关是不起作用的，主角临走前，随手动了一下门边的开关，明亮的灯光不变，证实这是一个梦境。梦中有梦，无穷无尽，让我想到盗梦空间。

梦境曲折离奇，或关于自己，或关于他人，梦的频繁出现让人难以区分梦境与现实，如庄周梦蝶，不知是庄周在蝶的梦中，还是蝶在庄周的梦中。

人生如梦，太过匆匆，你我皆过客，若庄周，若蝶。

非常粗糙的画风，非常枯燥的内容。这实在是我没有料到的。
尽管是英语片，但却有着小众电影必备的贯穿始终的絮叨——没有联系的出场人物，没有前后文，没有基本的寒暄玩笑，就是这样一个个地直接对着主人公开讲。演讲内容多半是关于人生意义、梦境原理、伦理设想、哲学思辨……我开始还企图要跟上讲话者的思路，努力要弄清楚一个人和另一个讲话内容的主旨与联系。后来就彻底放弃了。我基本上就是那个不断醒来，发现自己在另一个梦境里的主角，能做的就只有面无表情地四处游走，面无表情地装作在听别人宣讲。
我后来才弄明白为什么这个主题要用动画手法来表现——它明明是拍下真人之后，电脑特效作出来的。因为那些不断抖动的镜头，不断纷纷叉叉的线条，才能显出梦境的意味：不确定，不确定，不确定。
片子基本上是在挑战普通人的忍耐力，以及“到底你可以坚持到几分钟的时候才睡着”这个实验命题。但是毋庸置疑的是，那些人的絮叨其实都充满思想的力量，可惜是画面，画面之于文字，恰恰就短缺在这个引导别人抽象思考的部分。
我只是想对编导们说：Nice try。

《半梦半醒的人生》的29段谈话与自白 by idletalk


《半梦半醒的人生》Waking Life——这是一部2001年拍摄的动画片。导演兼编剧理查德林克莱特用DV在奥斯汀拍摄了这部影片，然后使用“interpolated翻拍”程序将图像转换，使得实景增加了程序化的外观看上去象是动画片。就是这样一部看起来不像是动画片的动画片，在当年也没引起什么反响；我却反复看5遍，因为在我看来这可能是21世纪前期最为伟大的影片。

影片的故事非常的简单，主人公一个大学生，他来到了一个超现实的幻境中。他身处的这座城市好象是奥斯汀，但日常生活的规律和秩序似乎完全被打破了。
他从一个地方游荡到另一个地方，不断遇到稀奇古怪的人。最有意思的是他遇见的这些人都在谈论一些宏大高深的话题：从量子论到语言的起源，从存在主义到人的转世再生，从自由意志的荒谬到电影作为一种叙事工具，他陷入一场接着一场的对话中。
他极力想知道自己究竟处在梦境中，还是处于清醒中。但最终他只是发现自己不断苏醒，又不断重新坠入梦境中。他无法摆脱这接二连三地涌现的梦，开始逐渐理解梦的含义，并试着控制梦和周围的环境，分辨苏醒的人生与梦中人生的区别……

大量对话也正是林克莱特作品的一个标志性元素。不同于伍迪艾伦纽约知识分子神经质式的喋喋不休，也不同于埃里克侯麦法国中产阶级长篇大论的交谈，林克莱特呈现的是美国年轻人鲜活而具有时代特色的语言。而且他的不少影片还不是几个人的谈话，而是规模庞大。不过相对于过去的作品，此片中的对话要显得“知识分子气”浓重得多，那些晦涩抽象的哲学命题对观众可绝对是个考验。

在这些繁杂的谈话中我把它切割成了29个片段，并努力以自己的理解诠释其内容。虽然它的丰富我只看到了一角。但时间会证明它的伟大值得我去这样做。

1、船型车司机———任何的事物你都可以不赞同，但重要的是他存在的事实。随大流是大多数人的共性，可最终你会发现你必须去找到自己的非共性所在。

2、大学教授————排除集体共性的过程中，并不一定能找到自我的个性，问题的重点乃在于思考的过程。

3、金发女子————语言所具有的不可沟通性，言语在每个人的心中有着不同的深层含义，也即联系物和凭借物的不同导致人类即使使用的是同一种语言，也存在永远无法沟通的盲点。

4、黑白发男子————望远镜似的人类进化过程（物质——精神）。不同智慧间质与量的转化（毁灭——重生）

5、自焚的男子————人类自毁性与人类社会自毁性存在着共通点。（个人的自杀、病痛和人类社会的战争、自然灾害）。媒体对社会丑恶面的频繁揭露，并无法消灭它，只能迫使人们对其麻木并接受。

6、交欢中的男女————人类记忆与经验在一代一代的遗传着。途径并非来自言语和书籍，而是DNA中的深层存在。

7、监狱中的男子————用复仇的幻想来填补时间。（许许多多的人都在用欲望实践的梦想来填补日常生活的时间）

8、戴眼镜的中年男子————人类的自由很大程度建立在物理规则上。但同时又存在一些不规则的元素来动摇原始的物理规则。可恰恰在某种意义上，不规则的元素也可能是物理规则中的一环。（上帝的决定——人类的自由意志——其中的界限）问题在于外延与内延的边界在哪？

9、宣传车上的男子————突破即定的规则，世界便是即定规则的框架，政治则是即定规则的核心动力。革命的问题不在于是否毁灭，而在于毁灭之后建立什么？

10、戴眼镜的老者————如若中心为“无”，既是空。对任何一个存在说是，既是对所有的存在说是。

11、黑人男子————现有的分类是对知识最大的束缚。我们必须将其解脱重整，使之聚合。在知识的共同领域寻求新知。

12、咖啡厅里的两位女子————人体的细胞在七年的过程里会全部更新。新我的产生，迫使我们肯定不同于旧我，但在认知上我们还是保持着自己与旧我的认同。问题在于延续性。人不可能缺乏延续性的不断的与自我重新认同。

13、播电影的猴子————人在困苦中可以获得的唯一有益知识是：任何事情都有可能发生，有困苦也必有欢乐。

14、白发老者————人类的痛苦有两种，或物质过于缺乏，或物质过于丰富。但在精神层面，人类却一直没有进步，问题在于人类的特性：恐惧和懒惰。

15、写作的男子————伟大的小说不在于其的故事，或者表现形式，而在于人、思想、时间。

16、留大胡子的胖子————梦境与现实，虚幻或真实之间的转化，有时非常简单。特别是当表现物为暴力时，

17、长发男子————梦是自我认同的一种过程，在一定意义上，它与现实没有根本区别。

18、弹琴的男子————梦的意义在于超越自我的存在形式。你可以是任何的一种存在形式，不一定是人类，甚至不一定是物体。

19、穿皮衣的长发男子————有些人醒着也在做梦，因为他们没有梦的意识，他们并不想在梦中得到思想的解放，他们的梦是现实的延续，也就是说是对物质渴望的梦想。

20、卷发男子————沉默……沉默……在这出看来喋喋不休的电影中此时出现了一个沉默看着你的男子。这种手法让我想起国画里的“留白”。人生是需要静默的，那时便是反观自身的时刻。

21、留着“雷鬼”头的四人帮————行动在很多时候只是理念自然而然的放映，但并不能因此就界定它具有明确的目的性。

22、背着背包的男子————梦在于自我感性的存在，寻找一切新的可能性。像旅行一般，向往所有的未知。

23、白衣男子————太阳底下无新事？不。梦具有发掘“新事”的可能性。

24、红发女子————交谈在很多时候只是人类远离孤独与表达礼貌的手段。而交流思想往往却居于其次。

25、爆炸头男子————记忆比忘却需要更大的力量，所以梦中的事情我们便经常遗忘。这与现实何其的相似。

26、光头男子————梦中的自己始终还是无法摆脱现实的投射，所以更多的时候梦中的本体也只不过是现实占优势的复制品。当然，个体存在着差异，但这种差异到底在多大程度上影响着我们？

27、售货员————人类的死亡与植物的枯死一样，都需要进行包裹。死亡是需要进行隐蔽的，因为大多数的人们不想看到这些。但这并不妨害到它们的存在。

28、束发的女子————人与人最终还是需要以某种联系作为纽带。但这种联系究竟应该是一种什么方式。现代人的联系的弱化是否可以用娱乐取代？

29打弹珠的男子————时间想让我们忘记上帝的存在。而永恒也因为时间的存在而变得可惧。但永恒之后还存在时间吗？

电影放到三分之二，我睡着了，以致不得不深夜把它从头至尾再看一遍。

这是值得的。这里头全是人生里讲不完的废话，而且它真的就敢用这样一种貌似无聊的宣教的方式讲了出来。也许为了老少咸宜，或者就干脆就是出于编织一个诡计的需要，它赋予自己以最绚烂的形式。但它仍然是一个诡计，对某些人而言，甚至是梦魇。

故事的结构，如同博尔赫斯著名的短篇《环形废墟》。博尔赫斯写道，一位逃亡的魔法师来到了一座庙宇的环行废墟中，他生存的意义就是做梦，为了在梦中塑造一个到达真实世界的“人”，一个将经历与他一样宿命的的幻影。唯一知道这塑造出来的人其实是幻影的，是世界上的火。某天，环行废墟再次遭到火焚。当魔法师走向大火时，火焰非但没有吞噬他的皮肉，反而抚慰他，于是，“他宽慰地，惭愧地，害怕地知道他也是一个幻影，另一个人梦中的幻影。”

《半梦半醒的人生》这部电影，说的则是一个稀里糊涂的年轻男子，在没完没了、如套盒般一个包容一个的梦中，与这样那样的人展开关于人生的哲学、生物学、政治学、符号学之类的探讨，间或参杂某囚徒在狱中的凶狠诅咒、某自杀者在街头的自焚、几男子在加油站中所遇怪事，以及一些童年印象的逝影倏忽，如此整整100分钟。这男子发觉自己无论如何都走不出这个梦魇。他迫切地想要醒来，可是，每次他都是那个无法控制电灯的开关的人——梦中遭遇的一个人物曾告诉他，要知道自己是不是在梦境中，只要看看是不是能够调整房间里的光源就可以了。我们这位可怜的梦境穿梭者，根本找不到梦的源头——也就是所谓现实中的那个他，于是只好倾听各色人等在他的梦里面，无穷尽和他谈论人生如梦的大道理。

确实是足够黑色幽默。这电影耍的是一个机智的阴谋。如果你还记得《爱在黎明破晓时》和《爱在日落余晖时》，你就会明白这是同一个导演（RICHARD LINKLATER）的惯用路数。在那被人戏称为“侃大山电影之最”的两部曲中，RICHARD LINKLATER让一对俊男美女在维也纳和巴黎的街道和河岸走来走去，相互诉说彼此对于人性、政治、文学、自我的感悟，用一种略带惆怅和忧伤的方式说尽了青春的梦想和中年的彷徨。现在，导演自己破了自己的纪录。他在一部以真人表演为水彩创作素材的动画片里到达了侃大山电影的最高境界，那就是：里头所有的人物都在没完没了地演说，连一个出租汽车司机都可以面对镜头大谈特谈自由的意义。

显然，100分钟的时间里，除了被前所未有的视觉效果震撼，你还必须经历一场脑力激荡。整个过程中，不要试图抓住每个善辩的人物的话语意义，因为你终究会发现，你根本就不可能对其中涉及的话题进行归纳和总结。他们似乎说了许多，说得足够深度足够真诚，然而他们又什么都没有说——梦境穿梭者在每一场深奥的言说中离开，发觉自己还是陷在另一场梦中；用脑过度的观众最后只能记住那个在梦里欲罢不能的倒霉蛋。

《半梦半醒的人生》以轻微的悲观主义色彩，展现了关于人之解释、人生之解释的无穷尽性。太多的意义被赋予到一场梦境的追溯中，最后却用以证明梦境的虚幻。看这样的电影是一个翻开心胸享受思维快乐的过程，但愿它不会为你带来痛苦。

PS.《爱在日落余晖时》的悬案在《半梦半醒的人生》中终于得到了解答。Jesse和Céline究竟上了床没有？上了，而且在床上还继续着他们机智的讨论。对于《爱在日落余晖时》的影迷来说，这是一个重大的消息，呵呵。

回溯人类历史，

我们只重于人类的进化和它与环境的相互作用。

生物的进化伴随着人类的进化，

从原始人到现代人类的进化，

尼安德特人、克鲁马努人。

现在，有趣的是，你在这里所看到的有三个主干：

生物学，人类学，文明的发展，

和作为文化的人类表达。

这时你所看到的是种群的进化，而非个体的进化。

另外，如果你看看相关的时间表。

生命有二十亿年的历史，

原始人类有六千万年历史，

我们所了解的现代人类有十万年历史，

你就会慢慢了解到浓缩了的人类进化模式的本质。



然后当我们说到农业，科学，工业革命，

也只是一万年，四百年和一百五十年的历史。

你会看到更加浓缩了的进化过程。

于是我们进入了一个新的进化历程。

这个过程会浓缩到我们都能发觉它的存在的程度，

在我们一生之内，在我们这一代之内。

新的进化起源于两种信息：

数码与拟仿，

数码就是人工智能，

而由分子生物学和生物克隆技术产生了拟仿技术，

而神经生物学把二者紧密结合。

在旧的进化模式面前，

物竞天择，适者生存。

而在新的进化模式下，

他们会作为互助的非竞争性群体自主于外界而独立存在。



有趣的是，进化现在变成以个体自主的过程

发自作为自主的个体，而不是被动的被集体臆想支配下的个体。

因此作为新的个性和新的理念的新人类出世了。

但这只是新的进化循环的开始。

因为在下个循环进行时

输入了新智慧。

智慧不断积累，能力不断积累，

速度就会改变，直到某种意义上的高潮。

可以把它想象为人的瞬间巨大的满足感，

想象为新人类的潜能瞬间大量的释放。

那可能是个体的扩张，个体的繁殖，

和个体共生，不再有时间空间的限制。

而这些新人类进化的展现，将戏剧性的大出所望。

旧的进化已经冷却，贫瘠，但还有效。

它表现在社会对其的适应性上。

当你说到寄生，统治，道德，战争，掠夺。

这些会成为次要，

这些将会退化。

新的进化模式给予我们新的特微

真理，忠诚，正义和自由的人类特征

这些将成为这次进化所表现的，

那将是我们最期待的。

To look at human development

Look at the organism’s evolution……and his environmental interaction.

Evolution of the organism begins with evolution through the hominid…

…coming to the evolution of man.

Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon.

Now, what you’re looking at here are three strings:

Biological, anthropological, development of cultures…

…and cultural, which is human expression.

What you’ve seen is the evolution of populations, not individuals.

Then look at the time scale involved.

Two billion years for life, six million for hominid…

…100,000 years for mankind as we know it.

You see how the evolutionary paradigm telescopes.



Then when you get to agriculture, scientific and industrial revolution…

…you’re looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years.

You see a further telescoping of evolutionary time.

As we go through the new evolution…

…it will telescope to the point where we see it within our lifetime.

The new evolution stems from two types of information:

Digital and analog.

Digital is artificial intelligence.

Analog results from molecular biology and cloning.

You knit the two with neurobiology.

Under the old paradigm, one would die, the other would dominate.

Under the new paradigm, they exist as a supportive…

…non-competitive grouping, independent from the external.

So evolution now becomes an individually centered process…

…emanating from the individual…

…not a passive process with the individual at the collective’s whim.

So you produce a neo-human…

…with a new individuality, a new consciousness.

That’s only the beginning of the cycle.

As it proceeds, the input is this new intelligence.

As intelligence piles on intelligence, ability on ability…

…the speed changes until you reach a crescendo.

Imagine it as an instant fulfillment of human and neo-human potential.

It could be the amplification of the individual…

…the multiplication of individual, parallel existences…

…with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

And the manifestations of this neo-human evolution…

…could be dramatically counterintuitive.

The old evolution is cold, it’s sterile. It’s efficient.

Its manifestations are those of social adaption.

You’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality…

…war, predation.

These will be subject to de-emphasis and de-evolution.

The new paradigm would give us the traits…

…of truth, loyalty, justice and freedom.

These would be manifestations of this evolution. That’s what we hope.

新的进化，强调共生，不否定现状。对于腐败政治，道德，战争，丰功伟绩，城市规划等等都没有敌意。革命，颠覆，解放，改朝换代这些词汇将不再是于新的进化历程中的座右铭。旧的进化继续存在，就像农田继续存在，工厂继续存在一样。新的世界是新的进化和旧的进化的非敌对竞争性的共生，互补建构新的秩序，共同重组为明天新的系统。

随着数字技术和拟像技术进步，以及神经学的后天完善，产生了诸如电影，电子游戏，网络，google，虚拟现实，AI的普及，使得新人类的生存空间可以独立于原有的现实空间（城市的，农业的）之外而存在，而且更加丰富精彩。这是无数个无边无际空间，就像实数轴线外面无数的虚数的存在一样。在新的世界里，我们可以瞬间经历一切原有世界几代人积累下来的文化情感，可以即刻感触几千年人类旧文明的历史风骨，可以迅速认知旧进化历程里的每一种知识经验。同样，可以在同一时刻“身首异处”，身体赞存某地，而大脑和意识可以各个世界空间里各个角落自由驰骋。一切来得如此轻而易举，一切也就变得如此无足轻重。

并且，这个生存空间是完完全全属于个人属性的，个人的体验，个人的认知。每一个存在的人，既是终端，又是主角；既是那里的奴隶，又是那里的神。那里不是虚幻的，而是真实存在的。因为我们在那里感动着，兴奋着，满足着，想象着，创造着。因此，我们存在着。同时，新的空间是自由的，无生死的，传统意义上的经验时间在这里失效。黄粱一梦，不，是无数个不同时代（唐朝，清朝，中世纪，纽约，极乐净土等等，单选的或者多选的），不同地域（玛雅，巴黎，长安，淮海路，木卫二等等，单选的或者多选的），不同风格（歌特的，朋克的，洛可可的，工业的，禅的，单选的或者多选的）的黄粱梦，没有高潮，没有剧终。

“拟仿”是这个进化初期的主要表现形式，虚拟现实，重现。但是，通过对旧文明的选取，剪辑，重组，再现，呈现给我们的将是新的世界景观。而且，最重要的是作为个人而存在的新的个体将是新世界的新生物。

如何作一个“新人类”？

首先，让我们记住一个乐队的名字：joy division。享受分裂。如同新的进化和旧的进化共生共栖一样，我们必须学会将自身的多重人格共时分裂，并且享受这一分裂的过程。现实世界，为了维系我们的肉身，必须尊重现实旧秩序下的生存之道。找一份简单的工作，养活自己，找一个贤惠的妻子，繁衍后代。孝敬老人，依法纳税，不闯红灯，不随地吐痰… …当我们进入新的世界里面，我们的元神出壳，内心的多重人格开始显现，随心所欲。你可以是一个怨天尤人的老者，可以是一个天真无猜的童子，可以是思维缜密的统帅，可以是个欲求不满的荡妇；可以是希特勒，可以是甘地，可以是孙悟空，可以是鱼玄机，单选的或者多选的。不会有人来限制你的演出，不会有谁来戳穿你的骗局，只要你演的出色，只要你编的过瘾。你得到了释放，得到了满足。这个世界没有维系旧进化的伦理道德的。尽情的分裂，尽情的享受分裂所带来的快感吧。

其次，再让我们记住一部小说的名字，Neoromancer（神经漫游者），在新的世界里，我们的主要活动就是“漫游”，没有目的，没有理想，没有奋斗，没有鞠躬尽瘁，死而后已。我们的生存空间已经足够复杂庞大。我们生活在一个“后”的时代。无为而为。逍遥漫游。足以。不要担心迷失，分裂是为了更整体的实现自我。因为你得到了自由，你将会感到更加的孤独。同时，你将有机会去深深的思考到作为存在的本质。

化作一个蝴蝶，在这里采摘你的五彩花朵吧。

（写于05年10月20日）

If you see a light switch nearby,see if it works.You can't do that in a lucid dream.

影片的始终，都没有出现实拍的场景，彻头彻尾的梦境。
看这部影片的观众，就像是附在主人公灵魂上的跳蚤，跟着他旅行。不知道这段旅行的起点是哪，也不知道何时会结束。一切都随着他的潜意识，有时候顺延，时而跳跃。
梦境，就该是这样的吧。像是串联一些无厘头的故事，自己捏造一些人物，看上去活生生的面容清晰，但当仔细想认出他们脸庞的时候却觉得他们的五官会变化流动无法捕捉,越来越模糊。
导演高明地将实拍的场景动画处理化，于是人物和周遭的事物都在晃动游离，失去重心的世界也许是这样的。手持DV拍摄出的抖动效果恰到好处地安在了这里。
会不会我们做梦的时候我们其实都在月球上呢？摆脱了肉体的重量，21克的物质很轻易地加速到超越光速，于是往返于各个星球，各个时代....而造成梦境的一片混乱。
才知道Julie Delpy在除了《Before sunrise》和《Before sunset》那两部影片中还在这里出现了，尽管动画人物的身份，辨别出她还是比较容易的，影片中的类似废话的哲理独白很多，她的一段话挺有趣也挺引人深思，这似乎从日出之前那部就是开始困扰这个导演的问题：
About reincarnation,and where all the new souls come from over time.Everybody always says they're the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.You know they were a dumb fuck like everyone else.I mean,it's impossible.The world population has doubled in the past 40 years.So if you believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul you have 50% chance of your soul being over 40.For it to be over 150 years old,it's only one out of six......I believe reincanation is a poetic expression of what collective memory is....I read an article by a biochemist not long ago.He said when a member of a species is born it has a billion years of memory to draw on.This is where we inherit our instincts.

影片结束时，一段旅行也结束，一场共鸣也结束，我下意识地按了两下台灯的开关，确定了自己的处境。

So what do you think of my little vessel?

She's what we call "see-worthy." S-E-E. See with your eyes

I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality.

Voila. And this? This is like my little window to the world, and every minute, it's a different show.

Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it.

But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and good-byes. The ride does not require an explanation. Just occupants. That's where you guys come in. It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box.

Now, you may get the 8 pack, you may get the 16 pack. But it's all in what you do with the crayons,the colors that you're given. Don't worry about drawing within the lines or coloring outside the lines.

I say color outside the lines. Color right off the page. Don't box me in. We're in motion to the ocean. We are not landlocked, I'll tell ya that.

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite.

Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.

But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.

But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility,he's not talking about something abstract.

He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.

In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came from. I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that. Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that. But when it gets really interesting, I think,is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love? When I say "love,"the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand. But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable. And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected,and we think that we're understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.

And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

If we are looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you are looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological, development of the cities, cultures and cultural, which is human expression. Now, what you are seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that's involved here two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation. The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog.

The digital is artificial intelligence.

The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external. And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and the desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle, because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until you reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual,the multiplication of individual existences.

Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space. And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It's sterile. It's efficient, okay? And its manifestations are those social adaptations. You're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These would be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. That is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone. He's an outsider to the human community. He thinks to himself, "I must be insane." What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does, a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes. These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs. Man wants chaos. In fact, he's gotta have it. Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers. Hey, you got a match? And they haven't given us any other options outside the occasional, purely symbolic, participatory act of voting. You want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left? I feel that the time has come to project my own inadequacies and dissatisfactions into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes.

Let my own lack of a voice be heard.

I keep thinking about something you said. - Something I said?

- Yeah. About how you often feel like you're observing your life from the perspective of an old woman about to die. - You remember that?

- Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes. Like I'm looking back on my life. Like my waking life is her memories.

Exactly. I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying that he was looking forward to the moment when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive. They say that there's still 6 to 12 minutes of brain activity after everything is shut down. And a second of dream consciousness, right, well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second. - You know what I'm saying?

- Oh, yeah, definitely. For example, I wake up and it's 10:12, and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate, beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours, and then I wake up and it's 10:13. Exactly. So then 6 to 1 2 minutes of brain activity,I mean, that could be your whole life. I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything. Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that? Whatever I am right now. I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind. I'm still just as real as anything else. Yeah.

- I've been thinking also about something you said.

- What's that?

Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time. Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.

I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else. I mean, it's impossible. Think about it. The world population has doubled in the past 40 years, right? - So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, then you only have a 50% chance of your soul being over 40. And for it to be over 150 years old, then it's only one out of six. So what are you saying then? Reincarnation doesn't exist or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first-round humans? No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe reincarnation is just a poetic expression of what collective memory really is. There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago, and he was talking about how when a member of a species is born, it has a billion years of memory to draw on. And this is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. It's like there's, um, this whole telepathic thing going on that we are all a part of, whether we are conscious of it or not.

That would explain why there's all these, you know, seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts.

You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other. Some guy on a computer, he figures something out, and then almost simultaneously, a bunch of other people all over the world figure out the same thing.

They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time, and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles in relation to the general population. And then they secretly gave them a day-old crossword, one that had already been answered by thousands of other people. Their scores went up dramatically, like 20 percent. So it's like once the answers are out there, you know, people can pick up on them. It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

I'll get you motherfuckers if it's the last thing I do.

Oh, you're gonna pay for what you did to me. For every second I spend in this hellhole, I'll see you spend a year in living hell!

Oh, you fucks are gonna beg me to let you die. No, no, not yet. I want you cocksuckers to suffer. Oh, I'll fix your fuckin' asses, all right. Maybe a long needle in your eardrum. A hot cigar in your eye. Nothing fancy. Some molten lead up the ass.

Ooh! Or better still, some of that old Apache shit. Cut your eyelids off. Yeah. I'll just listen to you fucks screaming.

Oh, what sweet music that'll be. Yeah. We'll do it in the hospital. With doctors and nurses so you pricks don't die on me too quick. You know the best part? The best part is you dick-smoking faggots will have your eyelids cut off,so you'll have to watch me do it to you, yeah. You'll see me bring that cigar closer and closer to your wide-open eyeball till you're almost out of your mind. But not quite,cause I want it to last a long, long time. I want you to know that it's me, that I'm the one that's doing it to you.Me! And that sissy psychiatrist?What unmitigated ignorance! That old drunken fart of a judge!What a pompous ass! Judge not, lest ye be judged! All of you pukes are gonna die the day I get out of this shithole! I guarantee you'll regret the day you met me!

In a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem's been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too. We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do, or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything. There's not a lot of room left for freedom. So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say, "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality, for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty or admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. The question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade. Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. Looks like it's a free action on your part,but every one of those- every part of that process is actually governed by physical law:chemical laws, electrical laws and so on. So now it just looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of our history, the whole rest of human history and even before, is really just sort of the playing out of subatomic particles, according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we are special. We think we have some kind of special dignity,but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture. So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? "I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. "It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's gonna enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really gonna help, because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random.

They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that it's unpredictable, and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that gonna help with freedom? Should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That just seems like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic, physical machine than just some random swerving. So we can't just ignore the problem.

We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons,with all that that it entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility and trying to understand individuality.

You can't fight city hall, death and taxes. Don't talk about politics or religion. This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling across the picket line. " Lay down, G.I. Lay down, G.I." We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now in the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control, those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more! I want freedom! That's what I want! And that's what you should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and just shovel the greed, the hatred, the envy and, yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control-- make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century is gonna be a new century, not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance and classism and statism and all the rest of the modes of control! It's gonna be the age of humankind standing up for something pure and something right!

What a bunch of garbage-- liberal Democrat, conservative Republican. It's all there to control you. Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control! The C.E.O. job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies! I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me? Resistance is not futile. We're gonna win this thing. Humankind is too good! We're not a bunch of underachievers! We're gonna stand up and we're gonna be human beings! We're gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter: creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit! Well, that's it! That's all I got to say! It's in your court.

The quest is to be liberated from the negative, which is really our own will to nothingness. And once having said yes to the instant, the affirmation is contagious. It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit. To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence.

The main character is what you might call "the mind."

It's mastery, it's capacity to represent.

Throughout history, attempts have been made to contain those experiences which happen at the edge of the limit where the mind is vulnerable.

But I think we are in a very significant moment in history.

Those moments, those what you might call liminal, limit, frontier, edge zone experiences are actually now becoming the norm.

These multiplicities and distinctions and differences that have given great difficulty to the old mind are actually through entering into their very essence, tasting and feeling their uniqueness.

One might make a breakthrough to that common something that holds them together.

And so the main character is, to this new mind, greater, greater mind.

A mind that yet is to be.

And when we are obviously entered into that mode, you can see a radical subjectivity, radical attunement to individuality, uniqueness to that which the mind is, opens itself to a vast objectivity.

So the story is the story of the cosmos now.

The moment is not just a passing, empty nothing yet.

And this is in the way in which these secret passages happen.

Yes, it's empty with such fullness that the great moment, the great life of the universe is pulsating in it.

And each one, each object, each place, each act leaves a mark.

And that story is singular.

But, in fact, it's story after story.

Time just dissolves into quick-moving particles that are swirling away.

Either I'm moving fast or time is. Never both simultaneously.

It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically, I 'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been, I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world. When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty, like there was an end to the path, and I had to get there. I know what you mean because I can remember thinking, "Oh, someday, like in my mid-thirties maybe, everything's going to just somehow jell and settle, just end." It was like there was this plateau, and it was waiting for me, and I was climbing up it, and when I got to the top, all growth and change would stop. Even exhilaration. But that hasn't happened like that, thank goodness. I think that what we don't take into account when we are young is our endless curiosity. That's what's so great about being human. - You know that thing Benedict Anderson says about identity?

- No. Well, he's talking about like, say, a baby picture. So you pick up this picture, this two-dimensional image, and you say, "That's me." Well, to connect this baby in this weird little image with yourself living and breathing in the present, you have to make up a story like, "This was me when I was a year old, and later I had long hair, and then we moved to Riverdale, and now here I am." So it takes a story that's actually a fiction to make you and the baby in the picture identical to create your identity. And the funny thing is, our cells are completely regenerating every seven years. We've already become completely different people several times over,and yet we always remain quintessentially ourselves.

Our critique began as all critiques begin:with doubt.

Doubt became our narrative.

Ours was a quest for a new story, our own.

And we grasp toward this new history driven by the suspicion that ordinary language couldn't tell it.

Our past appeared frozen in the distance, and our every gesture and accent signified the negation of the old world and the reach for a new one.

The way we lived created a new situation, one of exuberance and friendship, that of a subversive microsociety in the heart of a society which ignored it.

Art was not the goal but the occasion and the method for locating our specific rhythm and buried possibilities of our time.

The discovery of a true communication was what it was about, or at least the quest for such a communication.

The adventure of finding it and losing it.

We the unappeased, the unaccepting continued looking, filling in the silences with our own wishes, fears and fantasies.

Driven forward by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to us, we knew that anything was still possible.

And, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one.

There are two kinds of sufferers in this world: those who suffer from a lack of life and those who suffer from an overabundance of life.

I've always found myself in the second category.

When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not essentially any different from animal behavior.

The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super-chimpanzee level.

Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.

Why so few?

Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress, but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes?

No greater values have developed.

Hell, the Greeks 3,000 years ago were just as advanced as we are.

So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential?

The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic - fear or laziness?

What are you writing?

A novel.

What's the story?

There's no story.

It's just people, gestures, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions.