标题是噱头，看看有多少八卦的人会循迹而来，然后不得不败兴而归。。。

   其实我也不知道这个词怎么突然从我脑子里冒出来——就在昨天从办公室走出来，站在下行的扶梯上的时候。中环历山大厦的lobby永远那么敞亮，永远充盈着音乐，行走于中的人也仍然衣着光鲜，行色匆匆，可我却忽然心生悲凉，然后“倾城之恋”就这么闪过。

   兴许是因为我所在的城尚未倾覆，却弥漫着惶惶的气氛。这个弹丸之城凝聚了太多的金融人才，都对当前的经济形势忧心忡忡；这片市井之地也没有太多政治话题，所以一看新闻就是下跌的股市和收紧的银根；还未到圣诞打折季，商店就摆出诱人的折扣刺激消费，就连街边的大排挡都推出了“金融海啸价”的叉烧饭——终于连对金融麻木不仁的我都觉得一场旷世危机真的是铺天盖地的袭来了！

   然而日常生活却并没有什么改变。我脑子里少一根关键的弦，所以从来没学会投资，也因此没有赚钱的激动也没有赔钱的隐忧；饭碗暂时稳当；家人尤其健康；照样上班照样打球照样看戏照样读书，在一个乱世中的小人物如我，还是一样的过日子。张爱玲笔下的男女在战乱中寻到俗世生活的宁静，我也在历史的转折点中继续平庸和碌碌。

   今天却在“南方周末”的专栏里读到一篇“倾城”之前的恋情。讲美联储前主席格林斯潘和ABC主播芭芭拉的爱情故事——这个老头儿重新成为坊间议题，大概是因为上周四在国会承认自己在理论上犯了错误，过于相信金融系统在自由市场条件下的自我纠正能力。信奉小政府、被共和党邀请入阁的格林斯潘，如何成为鼓励长期低利率，为广大穷人“派房子”的政策支持者？或者，另一个角度的宣传语：沉闷、不修边幅、不懂殷勤、又尚未成名的潘老头儿凭什么吸引了美女主播？如果感兴趣的话，可以去读这篇专栏。

http://woodlee.z.infzm.com/2008/10/24/

   作者吴澧，自介专业外语，职业外事。他的专栏我常看，取材新颖，言之有趣。每周一篇的文章，“第一个周五胡说八道杂拌儿，第二个周五美国大选，最后一个周五书评影评或附庸风雅，倒数第二个周五鼓吹女男平等，逢到有五个周五的月份，中间那个谈教育”，特此推荐给金融海啸下，端坐于办公室电脑前，却无事可做的banker和lawyer们解闷。

傍晚在家附近的超市，排队等着付钱时，看见一对老夫妇，很认真的用东北口音的普通话跟店员解释：

“我在你们这儿已经碰到好几次了，买的是菜包，可是里面总有一个是肉包”老太太说

“今天已经是第四次了”老头儿补充

“明明是菜包，可是里面为什么总有一个肉包呢？”老太太歪着头，很迷茫的表情

“而且呀，那个肉包味道也不好”老头儿很恳切地又补充

男店员不住地点头，估计听懂了，但是普通话不足以解释问题，所以只听见他讲：“包，包，包……”

老头儿老太太态度也很好，不知道是充分理解香港同胞的国语水平，还是上了年纪特有的耐心，继续和颜悦色地讲：“你看，袋子上写得也是菜包啊，可是里面咋还有肉包哩？”

我觉得特别可爱。

估计这是孩子在香港工作，被接过来小住一段的“内地输港人才”的爸爸妈妈们的代表。他们对气候和环境多半感到陌生和不适，但是内心一定充满了“我儿子真有出息”的骄傲感。很有可能儿子刚打完电话说，又得在中环的某一间办公室里加班不回来吃晚饭，于是老两口只好自己草草吃完，一面心疼“我儿子真辛苦”，一面连散步带办事地到超市来整明白包子事件。

我总觉得这对老夫妇的身上，凝聚了很多我身边的那些上了年纪的爸爸妈妈们的特质，有点天真，有点较真。岁月柔化了性格中很多羞涩和固执的因素。

从我离家到北京上大学那天开始，我爸跟我的电话最后两句一定是：“注意安全。尤其是用电安全。”九年来我听了无数次安全教育，并且时不时对这个千篇一律的结尾表示抗议。可是老爸还是像接起电话说“喂”一样自然的用“注意安全”来结束通话。前天我又撒娇说：“爸你是不是没有话跟我讲啦，所以每次只会说这一句”，没有料到老爸少有的抖出一句十字俗语：“在家千日好，出门万事难”接着说：“我就是觉得你一个女孩子自己在外面，挺不容易”。老爸从来不是一个善言辞的人，更不会表露感情。突然表白一下，竟然堵得我半晌说不出话。

上一次让我语塞的情景是，我跟我妈讲着话，听见我爸在旁边说：“我也要讲我也要讲。”接过电话，那头居然说：“丫头，老爸想你了”。

很多事情都颠倒过来了。

99年上大学时，我兴冲冲的说，我不用爹妈护航自己去北京就成。结果把我送到北京的老爸离开的那一天，我躲在宿舍的蚊帐里，哭得昏天暗地。而现在，每一次决绝的转身离开的，都成了我。

以前我总觉得我爸像福尔摩斯一样厉害，因为我总爱把东西随手乱放，然后自己找遍全屋也找不到，但是我爸按他的话说总是“走过去就找到了”。现在我会在他喃喃自语“诶，那个XXX怎么没看到了？”的时候，帮他找到他自己遗忘的东西。

刚开始认字的时候，我跟着我哥看他订的《儿童文学》、《少年文艺》之类的读物，好多字不认识。我总会举着书问：“妈妈这个字怎么念？”我妈从来不告诉我，总是说：“自己去查字典。”尽管麻烦，但是翻着字典，我于是不仅找到了读音，还知道了字的各种含义、组词造句等等——所以我至今认为这是我妈最成功的教育手段。但是现在，我妈会在她自己做笔记的时候，抬起头问：“那个X字怎么写来着？我怎么想不起来了？”我没法让她去查字典，字儿太小她看不见。

我在北京的时候，我妈天天看北京的天气预报。第一年暑假到江苏参加活动，她收看了十天江苏新闻。后来伴随我的足迹，她又陆续关注了香港、台湾、纽约、吉隆坡、新加坡、东京、首尔、日内瓦等地的天气预报，唯一比较掉链子的一次是我在波兰的两个月，华沙似乎没有被列入央视的“世界主要城市”名单。

我妈偶尔还是会和我爸为芝麻大的小事儿斗气。有时候我打电话回家正好碰上，一听见她抱怨说：“我懒都懒得理他”，就得进行调解斡旋工作。我妈近来总会说：“好吧，我听你的。你看你看，我接受你批评教育的态度多么谦虚。可我跟你说什么事儿，你就不爱听。”

所以呀，很多事情都颠倒过来了。

Baccalaureate address to Class of 2008

The Memorial Church

Cambridge, Mass.
June 3, 2008

As prepared for delivery

In the curious custom of this venerable institution, I find myself standing before you expected to impart words of lasting wisdom. Here I am in a pulpit, dressed like a Puritan minister — an apparition that would have horrified many of my distinguished forebears and perhaps rededicated some of them to the extirpation of witches. This moment would have propelled Increase and Cotton into a true "Mather lather." But here I am and there you are and it is the moment of and for Veritas.

You have been undergraduates for four years. I have been president for not quite one. You have known three presidents; I one senior class. Where then lies the voice of experience? Maybe you should be offering the wisdom. Perhaps our roles could be reversed and I could, in Harvard Law School style, do cold calls for the next hour or so.

We all do seem to have made it to this point — more or less in one piece. Though I recently learned that we have not provided you with dinner since May 22. I know we need to wean you from Harvard in a figurative sense. I never knew we took it quite so literally.

But let's return to that notion of cold calls for a moment. Let's imagine this were a baccalaureate service in the form of Q & A, and you were asking the questions. "What is the meaning of life, President Faust? What were these four years at Harvard for? President Faust, you must have learned something since you graduated from college exactly 40 years ago?" (Forty years. I'll say it out loud since every detail of my life — and certainly the year of my Bryn Mawr degree — now seems to be publicly available. But please remember I was young for my class.)

In a way, you have been engaging me in this Q & A for the past year. On just these questions, although you have phrased them a bit more narrowly. And I have been trying to figure out how I might answer and, perhaps more intriguingly, why you were asking.

Let me explain. It actually began when I met with the UC just after my appointment was announced in the winter of 2007. Then the questions continued when I had lunch at Kirkland House, dinner at Leverett, when I met with students in my office hours, even with some recent graduates I encountered abroad. The first thing you asked me about wasn't the curriculum or advising or faculty contact or even student space. In fact, it wasn't even alcohol policy. Instead, you repeatedly asked me: Why are so many of us going to Wall Street? Why are we going in such numbers from Harvard to finance, consulting, i-banking?

There are a number of ways to think about this question and how to answer it. There is the Willie Sutton approach. You may know that when he was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, "Because that's where the money is." Professors Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz, whom many of you have encountered in your economics concentration, offer a not dissimilar answer based on their study of student career choices since the seventies. They find it notable that, given the very high pecuniary rewards in finance, many students nonetheless still choose to do something else. Indeed, 37 of you have signed on with Teach for America; one of you will dance tango and work in dance therapy in Argentina; another will be engaged in agricultural development in Kenya; another, with an honors degree in math, will study poetry; another will train as a pilot with the USAF; another will work to combat breast cancer. Numbers of you will go to law school, medical school, and graduate school. But, consistent with the pattern Goldin and Katz have documented, a considerable number of you are selecting finance and consulting. The Crimson's survey of last year's class reported that 58 percent of men and 43 percent of women entering the workforce made this choice. This year, even in challenging economic times, the figure is 39 percent.

High salaries, the all but irresistible recruiting juggernaut, the reassurance for many of you that you will be in New York working and living and enjoying life alongside your friends, the promise of interesting work — there are lots of ways to explain these choices. For some of you, it is a commitment for only a year or two in any case. Others believe they will best be able to do good by first doing well. Yet, you ask me why you are following this path.

I find myself in some ways less interested in answering your question than in figuring out why you are posing it. If Professors Goldin and Katz have it right; if finance is indeed the "rational choice," why do you keep raising this issue with me? Why does this seemingly rational choice strike a number of you as not understandable, as not entirely rational, as in some sense less a free choice than a compulsion or necessity? Why does this seem to be troubling so many of you?

You are asking me, I think, about the meaning of life, though you have posed your question in code — in terms of the observable and measurable phenomenon of senior career choice rather than the abstract, unfathomable and almost embarrassing realm of metaphysics. The Meaning of Life — capital M, capital L — is a cliché — easier to deal with as the ironic title of a Monty Python movie or the subject of a Simpsons episode than as a matter about which one would dare admit to harboring serious concern.

But let's for a moment abandon our Harvard savoir faire, our imperturbability, our pretense of invulnerability, and try to find the beginnings of some answers to your question.

I think you are worried because you want your lives not just to be conventionally successful, but to be meaningful, and you are not sure how those two goals fit together. You are not sure if a generous starting salary at a prestigious brand name organization together with the promise of future wealth will feed your soul.

Why are you worried? Partly it is our fault. We have told you from the moment you arrived here that you will be the leaders responsible for the future, that you are the best and the brightest on whom we will all depend, that you will change the world. We have burdened you with no small expectations. And you have already done remarkable things to fulfill them: your dedication to service demonstrated in your extracurricular engagements, your concern about the future of the planet expressed in your vigorous championing of sustainability, your reinvigoration of American politics through engagement in this year's presidential contests.

But many of you are now wondering how these commitments fit with a career choice. Is it necessary to decide between remunerative work and meaningful work? If it were to be either/or, which would you choose? Is there a way to have both?

You are asking me and yourselves fundamental questions about values, about trying to reconcile potentially competing goods, about recognizing that it may not be possible to have it all. You are at a moment of transition that requires making choices. And selecting one option — a job, a career, a graduate program — means not selecting others. Every decision means loss as well as gain — possibilities foregone as well as possibilities embraced. Your question to me is partly about that — about loss of roads not taken.

Finance, Wall Street, "recruiting" have become the symbol of this dilemma, representing a set of issues that is much broader and deeper than just one career path. These are issues that in one way or another will at some point face you all — as you graduate from medical school and choose a specialty — family practice or dermatology, as you decide whether to use your law degree to work for a corporate firm or as a public defender, as you decide whether to stay in teaching after your two years with TFA. You are worried because you want to have both a meaningful life and a successful one; you know you were educated to make a difference not just for yourself, for your own comfort and satisfaction, but for the world around you. And now you have to figure out the way to make that possible.

I think there is a second reason you are worried — related to but not entirely distinct from the first. You want to be happy. You have flocked to courses like "Positive Psychology" — Psych 1504 — and "The Science of Happiness" in search of tips. But how do we find happiness? I can offer one encouraging answer: get older. Turns out that survey data show older people — that is, my age — report themselves happier than do younger ones. But perhaps you don't want to wait.

As I have listened to you talk about the choices ahead of you, I have heard you articulate your worries about the relationship of success and happiness — perhaps, more accurately, how to define success so that it yields and encompasses real happiness, not just money and prestige. The most remunerative choice, you fear, may not be the most meaningful and the most satisfying. But you wonder how you would ever survive as an artist or an actor or a public servant or a high school teacher? How would you ever figure out a path by which to make your way in journalism? Would you ever find a job as an English professor after you finished who knows how many years of graduate school and dissertation writing?

The answer is: you won't know till you try. But if you don't try to do what you love — whether it is painting or biology or finance; if you don't pursue what you think will be most meaningful, you will regret it. Life is long. There is always time for Plan B. But don't begin with it.

I think of this as my parking space theory of career choice, and I have been sharing it with students for decades. Don't park 20 blocks from your destination because you think you'll never find a space. Go where you want to be and then circle back to where you have to be.

You may love investment banking or finance or consulting. It might be just right for you. Or, you might be like the senior I met at lunch at Kirkland who had just returned from an interview on the West Coast with a prestigious consulting firm. "Why am I doing this?" she asked. "I hate flying, I hate hotels, I won't like this job." Find work you love. It is hard to be happy if you spend more than half your waking hours doing something you don't.

But what is ultimately most important here is that you are asking the question — not just of me but of yourselves. You are choosing roads and at the same time challenging your own choices. You have a notion of what you want your life to be and you are not sure the road you are taking is going to get you there. This is the best news. And it is also, I hope, to some degree, our fault. Noticing your life, reflecting upon it, considering how you can live it well, wondering how you can do good: These are perhaps the most valuable things that a liberal arts education has equipped you to do. A liberal education demands that you live self-consciously. It prepares you to seek and define the meaning inherent in all you do. It has made you an analyst and critic of yourself, a person in this way supremely equipped to take charge of your life and how it unfolds. It is in this sense that the liberal arts are liberal — as in liberare — to free. They empower you with the possibility of exercising agency, of discovering meaning, of making choices. The surest way to have a meaningful, happy life is to commit yourself to striving for it. Don't settle. Be prepared to change routes. Remember the impossible expectations we have of you, and even as you recognize they are impossible, remember how important they are as a lodestar guiding you toward something that matters to you and to the world. The meaning of your life is for you to make.

I can't wait to see how you all turn out. Do come back, from time to time, and let us know.

    上午专门去看Sotheby’s在香港的秋拍预展，骄傲地发现他们的当代艺术拍品远不如Christie’s春拍的质量高。除了村上隆的一个雕塑，和曾樊志的一幅《Andy Warhol 不远万里来到中国》的大油画以外，没有什么给我留下特别印象的。但是“皇威天下”宫廷艺术专场的拍品确实是极品。尤其是有两个红色的漆盒和几个玉玺，精雕细刻，美轮美奂。想起溥仪在《我的前半生》书里多次提到的那些精心挑拣出来成箱“带出宫”又最后“不知去向”的宝贝，真是令人暗暗心痛。

         2点钟从会展中心出来，无意中发现那个只放艺术片的Agnes b 影院2点半有一场关于草间弥生的纪实电影「草間弥生――わたし大好き」、 英文字幕的翻译是“I adore myself “. 介绍说是从2006年初到2007年底跟拍她近两年的工作和生活状况的片子。我于是在寒冷的影院里看了这个当代艺术殿堂级人物的幕后人生。出乎意料的好看。没有想到一贯显得冷酷、高傲、夸张、神经质（当然，据说她本来就长期受到精神病的困扰）的草间弥生，居然有这么可爱的一面。我也喜欢看这个身材矮小，步履蹒跚的小老太太（拍摄期间，庆祝了她的77岁生日），如何在完成每一张画作之后，都发自内心的咏叹那是怎样的天才之作；她也会在翻阅杂志上关于自己的文章时，指着作品照片问旁人：“不觉得我的比他（杂志上同时刊载着村上隆的大作）的好看很多吗？”——我坚持认为她的这种自恋建立在超常的自信上，但有才华作底，与精神病症无关。

        摄像机还记载了77岁的草间，如何用写白板的那种黑色墨水笔，一笔一笔，让她的标志性的圆点、网纹与眼睛的图案，填满整个一人高的大画布，并且完成50幅风格一致但是构图迥异的“Love-Forever”系列。你必须去看这部电影，看她作画的过程，才能更好的理解她的天分与才华。我很诧异一直到最后一笔，那些密密麻麻貌似杂乱无章的点和线，才会组成那么奇妙的和谐美感；也很佩服这么巨大而繁复的一幅画，竟然没有任何草图或者构思，只是从一个小圆点开始，看她一笔一笔的涂着，渐渐地图案就淹没了整张画布。

        我想从网上找一张这个系列的画——唯有视觉才能让你体会深刻。但是只找到这一张相对比较简洁的。千万不要撇嘴说这个容易，请想象如果你手中握着一支白板笔，面对一幅1.5*2米的画布，一切从下端那个花蕊部分的圆点开始，你能画出什么样的东西。能否跟她的作品一样original? 还有一点，看图片绝对看不到实体所能展现的质感和细节——所以人们要去画廊和美术馆，而不能只待在家里翻图片。