I have a question for you: Are you religious? Please raise your hand right now if you think of yourself as a religious person. Let's see, I'd say about three or four percent. I had no idea there were so many believers at a TED Conference. (Laughter) Okay, here's another question: Do you think of yourself as spiritual in any way, shape or form? Raise your hand. Okay, that's the majority.
問你們一個問題: 你有宗教信仰嗎? 如果你覺得你是個有宗教信仰的人 請舉起你的手 看來有百分之三到四的人 沒想到TED聽眾還有這麼多宗教信徒 (笑聲) 好,下一個問題: 你覺得你是個有靈性的人嗎? 無論各種型態,請舉手 好,大部分的人都是
My Talk today is about the main reason, or one of the main reasons, why most people consider themselves to be spiritual in some way, shape or form. My Talk today is about self-transcendence. It's just a basic fact about being human that sometimes the self seems to just melt away. And when that happens, the feeling is ecstatic and we reach for metaphors of up and down to explain these feelings. We talk about being uplifted or elevated.
我今天的演講 是要解釋 為何我們人會認為自己屬靈 不管藉由什麼方法或型態 我今天的演講有關"自我昇華" 這是個簡單的概念,有關我們人類 偶爾會不再以自我為中心 而當我們無私時 會有種難以言喻的狂喜 我們尋找各種言詞 來表達這種內心的悸動 好比說"無比振奮" 或是"達到忘我的境界"
Now it's really hard to think about anything abstract like this without a good concrete metaphor. So here's the metaphor I'm offering today. Think about the mind as being like a house with many rooms, most of which we're very familiar with. But sometimes it's as though a doorway appears from out of nowhere and it opens onto a staircase. We climb the staircase and experience a state of altered consciousness.
光看字面實在是很難想像 這到底是什麼樣的感受 所以我提供一個比喻來詮釋 想像你的腦是個大房子 我們很熟悉大多數的房間 但有時候,會有一道門 在我們面前突然出現 打開後是向上的階梯 我們走上階梯 感受到一股強烈的心靈悸動
In 1902, the great American psychologist William James wrote about the many varieties of religious experience. He collected all kinds of case studies. He quoted the words of all kinds of people who'd had a variety of these experiences. One of the most exciting to me is this young man, Stephen Bradley, had an encounter, he thought, with Jesus in 1820. And here's what Bradley said about it.
在1902年 美國偉大的心理學家 William James 寫了有關各式的宗教經驗 他蒐集自各種個案研究 引用人們口中 多種的宗教體驗 其中有個例子非常有趣 這個年輕人 Stephen Bradley 在1820年,自認遇見了耶穌 以下是 Bradley 的口述:
(Music)
(音樂)
(Video) Stephen Bradley: I thought I saw the savior in human shape for about one second in the room, with arms extended, appearing to say to me, "Come." The next day I rejoiced with trembling. My happiness was so great that I said I wanted to die. This world had no place in my affections. Previous to this time, I was very selfish and self-righteous. But now I desired the welfare of all mankind and could, with a feeling heart, forgive my worst enemies.
(影片) "我見到道成肉身的救世主了 差不多有一秒鐘的時間,在房裡 張開雙臂 彷彿對我說:到我這來 隔天我興奮到發抖 那無比的快樂讓我想立刻死去 我不再留戀世俗的一切 在這之前 我是個自私自利的人 但現在我心中充滿了大愛 得以有顆飽富情感的心 能原諒我的敵人"
JH: So note how Bradley's petty, moralistic self just dies on the way up the staircase. And on this higher level he becomes loving and forgiving. The world's many religions have found so many ways to help people climb the staircase. Some shut down the self using meditation. Others use psychedelic drugs. This is from a 16th century Aztec scroll showing a man about to eat a psilocybin mushroom and at the same moment get yanked up the staircase by a god. Others use dancing, spinning and circling to promote self-transcendence. But you don't need a religion to get you through the staircase. Lots of people find self-transcendence in nature. Others overcome their self at raves.
所以注意到 Bradley 的小我與私心 在登上那段台階後都消失了 在這更高的層次裡 他變得有愛,有憐憫 世界上,各宗教都有自己的方法 來幫助人們登上這道階梯 有人坐禪來忘我 有人用迷幻藥 這是16世紀阿茲提克手繪 圖中的男子正在吃迷幻菇 同時,神來將他「拽上階梯」 另外有的用跳舞、轉圈和繞圈 來達到自我昇華的境界 但你不需經由信仰來自我昇華 許多人在大自然裡找到方式 有的可以在狂歡中得到解放
But here's the weirdest place of all: war. So many books about war say the same thing, that nothing brings people together like war. And that bringing them together opens up the possibility of extraordinary self-transcendent experiences. I'm going to play for you an excerpt from this book by Glenn Gray. Gray was a soldier in the American army in World War II. And after the war he interviewed a lot of other soldiers and wrote about the experience of men in battle. Here's a key passage where he basically describes the staircase.
但,其中最奇怪的管道是 戰爭 許多關於戰爭的書籍都提過 世界上沒有任何方法能像戰爭 把人緊密的凝聚在一起 這種群體意識加強了人們 超脫自我的體驗 我將從Glenn Gray的書 摘出一段做舉例 Gray當時是二次世界大戰的美國軍人 戰後他去拜訪了許多當時有參戰的軍人 之後寫了關於軍人在戰場的經驗 在裡面有個重要段落 描述他達到那境界的過程
(Video) Glenn Gray: Many veterans will admit that the experience of communal effort in battle has been the high point of their lives. "I" passes insensibly into a "we," "my" becomes "our" and individual faith loses its central importance. I believe that it is nothing less than the assurance of immortality that makes self-sacrifice at these moments so relatively easy. I may fall, but I do not die, for that which is real in me goes forward and lives on in the comrades for whom I gave up my life.
(影片) Glenn Gray:許多退役軍人都承認 在戰場上,大家是榮辱與共的 而這也是他們人生的高峰 「我」變成「我們」 「我的」變成「我們的」 而個人價值 失去了意義 我相信,沒有甚麼 比永恆不朽的榮譽 更能讓自我犧牲奉獻 變得容易 我也許會死,但我的意念不會 我的意念會傳承給 那些和我有過命之交 的好夥伴們
JH: So what all of these cases have in common is that the self seems to thin out, or melt away, and it feels good, it feels really good, in a way totally unlike anything we feel in our normal lives. It feels somehow uplifting. This idea that we move up was central in the writing of the great French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim even called us Homo duplex, or two-level man. The lower level he called the level of the profane. Now profane is the opposite of sacred. It just means ordinary or common. And in our ordinary lives we exist as individuals. We want to satisfy our individual desires. We pursue our individual goals. But sometimes something happens that triggers a phase change. Individuals unite into a team, a movement or a nation, which is far more than the sum of its parts.
這些例子都有一個共通點 自我變得渺小,甚至不重要 但卻讓人們自我感覺更良好 這些都是我們平常生活中很難感受到的 是一種昇華的感覺 這觀點在法國有名的社會學家 Emile Durkheim的著作中十分重要 Durkheim甚至稱我們為雙面人 或雙階人 他說低階那面是世俗的 世俗是超然的反面 意思是平凡或普通 在日常生活中,我們都是獨立生活的 我們都希望滿足自我的慾望 追求自己的目標 但有時一些事情發生 改變這個型態 人與人開始聯合 產生隊伍、社會運動或國家 所產生的力量大於個人的總和
Durkheim called this level the level of the sacred because he believed that the function of religion was to unite people into a group, into a moral community. Durkheim believed that anything that unites us takes on an air of sacredness. And once people circle around some sacred object or value, they'll then work as a team and fight to defend it. Durkheim wrote about a set of intense collective emotions that accomplish this miracle of E pluribus unum, of making a group out of individuals. Think of the collective joy in Britain on the day World War II ended. Think of the collective anger in Tahrir Square, which brought down a dictator. And think of the collective grief in the United States that we all felt, that brought us all together, after 9/11.
Durkheim稱這為超然的階段 他深信宗教的作用 就是把一群人聚在一起 最終變成道德社群 Durkheim相信任何凝聚人群的因素 都會無形中被視為神聖 當人們圍繞著 神聖的東西或價值觀 他們會一起合作保護它 Durkheim提到 一股強烈的集體情緒 可以讓人奇蹟般的合而為一 將個人組織成團體 試想二次世界大戰結束時 英國普世歡騰的氣氛 和當時在埃及解放廣場的集體怒氣 讓獨裁者被推翻 還有美國 在9/11後 那種集體悲傷 讓我們團結一心
So let me summarize where we are. I'm saying that the capacity for self-transcendence is just a basic part of being human. I'm offering the metaphor of a staircase in the mind. I'm saying we are Homo duplex and this staircase takes us up from the profane level to the level of the sacred. When we climb that staircase, self-interest fades away, we become just much less self-interested, and we feel as though we are better, nobler and somehow uplifted.
到此讓我先做個結論 超脫自我 其實只是人類的基本能力 我說了那腦海中 登上階梯的比喻 我們身為雙面人 而這階梯會引領我們從平凡境界 到達非凡的境界 當我們攀爬那階梯時 自我利益不再重要 我們不再這麼自私 我們覺得自己更加美好,更高貴 甚至感到振奮
So here's the million-dollar question for social scientists like me: Is the staircase a feature of our evolutionary design? Is it a product of natural selection, like our hands? Or is it a bug, a mistake in the system -- this religious stuff is just something that happens when the wires cross in the brain -- Jill has a stroke and she has this religious experience, it's just a mistake?
至此,對像我一樣的社會科學家 有一個極其重要的問題: 這座階梯 是不是我們自進化所得來的? 還是就好像我們的雙手 是與生俱來的? 或是它根本就是系統出錯 宗教這東西就像是 大腦中的線路錯接突然產生的現象 Jill中風時,她也有這宗教的經驗 這只是一時的出錯嗎?
Well many scientists who study religion take this view. The New Atheists, for example, argue that religion is a set of memes, sort of parasitic memes, that get inside our minds and make us do all kinds of crazy religious stuff, self-destructive stuff, like suicide bombing. And after all, how could it ever be good for us to lose ourselves? How could it ever be adaptive for any organism to overcome self-interest? Well let me show you.
許多研究宗教的科學家是這麼認為的 像是,新無神論者 覺得宗教是一系列的模仿 一種寄生的模仿 會入侵我們的想法 影響我們做出一系列瘋狂的宗教行為 或是自我毀滅,像是人體炸彈 最終 失去自我對我們來說 真的好嗎? 不管任何生物體 怎樣可能有辦法 克服自我私利? 讓我來告訴你
In "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin wrote a great deal about the evolution of morality -- where did it come from, why do we have it. Darwin noted that many of our virtues are of very little use to ourselves, but they're of great use to our groups. He wrote about the scenario in which two tribes of early humans would have come in contact and competition. He said, "If the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members who are always ready to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other." He went on to say that "Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected." In other words, Charles Darwin believed in group selection.
在《人類的起源》裡 達爾文寫了許多 關於道德進化論這件事 道德是從哪來的? 我們怎麼會擁有它? 達爾文指出了許多人性的美德 只有極小部分有利於我們 但是對我們的社群卻是極其有利的 他寫了一篇例子 早期人類有兩個部落 會交流和比賽 他說:"如果其中一方擁有 較多有膽量,有同情心 又忠誠的人民 且隨時願意幫助和保護別人 這個部落肯定會比較成功 並且征服另一個部落" 他還說:"自私和愛爭吵的人 無法凝聚一起 缺少同心協力 甚麼事情都不會有效果" 換句話說 達爾文相信 群體篩選
Now this idea has been very controversial for the last 40 years, but it's about to make a major comeback this year, especially after E.O. Wilson's book comes out in April, making a very strong case that we, and several other species, are products of group selection. But really the way to think about this is as multilevel selection.
這一觀點在過去的40年裡爭論不斷 但是今年,將會再度盛行 尤其是當E.O. Wilson的新書在4月份出版之後 會帶來很震撼的實例 書裡面說,我們和其他物種 都是群體篩選下的產物 但認真的思考下去 這就像是多重篩選
So look at it this way: You've got competition going on within groups and across groups. So here's a group of guys on a college crew team. Within this team there's competition. There are guys competing with each other. The slowest rowers, the weakest rowers, are going to get cut from the team. And only a few of these guys are going to go on in the sport. Maybe one of them will make it to the Olympics. So within the team, their interests are actually pitted against each other. And sometimes it would be advantageous for one of these guys to try to sabotage the other guys. Maybe he'll badmouth his chief rival to the coach. But while that competition is going on within the boat, this competition is going on across boats. And once you put these guys in a boat competing with another boat, now they've got no choice but to cooperate because they're all in the same boat. They can only win if they all pull together as a team. I mean, these things sound trite, but they are deep evolutionary truths.
我們應該要這樣來看: 你一直都處在團體裡和團體間的競爭 比方說有一群學生在划船隊裡 在這隊伍裡 一定有競爭 學生們會互相較勁 最慢跟最弱者最終會被踢出隊伍 只有一小部分的人會繼續待在這個運動 也許其中一人能參加奧運 因此,一個團體之中 個人的利益是互相競爭的 有時,會有人 經由陷害其他團員 而獲得個人利益 好比在教練面前 毀謗團體裡主要的競爭對手 但當這個船上的隊員 彼此競爭較勁時 不同船隊間的競賽也在進行中 而當另一個競爭團體出現 他們就非得合作不可 只因他們在同一艘船上 他們想贏 就必須合作 這聽起來是老生常談 但卻是演化上不爭的鐵實
The main argument against group selection has always been that, well sure, it would be nice to have a group of cooperators, but as soon as you have a group of cooperators, they're just going to get taken over by free-riders, individuals that are going to exploit the hard work of the others. Let me illustrate this for you. Suppose we've got a group of little organisms -- they can be bacteria, they can be hamsters; it doesn't matter what -- and let's suppose that this little group here, they evolved to be cooperative. Well that's great. They graze, they defend each other, they work together, they generate wealth. And as you'll see in this simulation, as they interact they gain points, as it were, they grow, and when they've doubled in size, you'll see them split, and that's how they reproduce and the population grows.
群體篩選論 的反對者指出: 群體合作固然很好 但當一個群體只剩下合作團結者 他們將會被投機者利用而後推翻 自私的人會投機且剝削合作團體 讓我解釋一下 假設我們有一群有機體 他們可以是細菌或倉鼠 他們演化成一群合作者 這樣很好, 他們一起分享食物,互相幫助 他們合作並繁殖壯大 如同這個模擬影片所示 他們良性互動,逐漸成長 當成長成兩倍大,他們分裂繁殖 他們的群體數量提升
But suppose then that one of them mutates. There's a mutation in the gene and one of them mutates to follow a selfish strategy. It takes advantage of the others. And so when a green interacts with a blue, you'll see the green gets larger and the blue gets smaller. So here's how things play out. We start with just one green, and as it interacts it gains wealth or points or food. And in short order, the cooperators are done for. The free-riders have taken over. If a group cannot solve the free-rider problem then it cannot reap the benefits of cooperation and group selection cannot get started.
但假設其中一個出現變異 他的基因突變 導致他自私自利 他利用其他無私付出的夥伴 當他們互動時 如您所見,綠色壯大但藍色萎縮 這就是來龍去脈 一開始不過是一個綠色 但他在群體裡占盡便宜 從其他對象搜刮財富與食物 然後很快的,合作者被耗盡 投機者取代了他們 任何團體如果解決不了這難題 就無法促成團體利益 群體篩選論就不能成立
But there are solutions to the free-rider problem. It's not that hard a problem. In fact, nature has solved it many, many times. And nature's favorite solution is to put everyone in the same boat. For example, why is it that the mitochondria in every cell has its own DNA, totally separate from the DNA in the nucleus? It's because they used to be separate free-living bacteria and they came together and became a superorganism. Somehow or other -- maybe one swallowed another; we'll never know exactly why -- but once they got a membrane around them, they were all in the same membrane, now all the wealth-created division of labor, all the greatness created by cooperation, stays locked inside the membrane and we've got a superorganism.
但其實,這難題 並非無解 事實上,大自然早已解決它許多次了 大自然絕佳的解決方法 就是把大家放進同一艘船 舉例來說 為什麼每個細胞的線粒體 有它們自己的DNA 跟細胞核裡的DNA完全分離 這是因為本來線粒體 是跟細菌分別生存的 後來它們合作共生 成為超級有機體 我們不懂它們如何變成共生體 也許一方被另一方被吞噬 但當它們共同活在一個細胞膜內 它們就是同一個細胞 所有的努力,食糧 所有分工合作的成果 都鎖在同一個細胞膜裡 這就是超級有機體
And now let's rerun the simulation putting one of these superorganisms into a population of free-riders, of defectors, of cheaters and look what happens. A superorganism can basically take what it wants. It's so big and powerful and efficient that it can take resources from the greens, from the defectors, the cheaters. And pretty soon the whole population is actually composed of these new superorganisms. What I've shown you here is sometimes called a major transition in evolutionary history. Darwin's laws don't change, but now there's a new kind of player on the field and things begin to look very different.
現在,我們再試一次模擬程式 把這個超級有機體放進 一群投機者、背叛者、作弊者之中 看看會發生什麼事 超有機體基本上無懈可擊 它強大且有效率 可以從其它綠色的投機者、背叛者、作弊者 取得想得到的資源 過不了多久 整個群體就被超有機體取代了 我這裡所展示的 在演化的歷史上 被稱做主要過度期 達爾文的進化法則沒有改變 只是當有新玩家加入 整件事就變得不一樣了
Now this transition was not a one-time freak of nature that just happened with some bacteria. It happened again about 120 or a 140 million years ago when some solitary wasps began creating little simple, primitive nests, or hives. Once several wasps were all together in the same hive, they had no choice but to cooperate, because pretty soon they were locked into competition with other hives. And the most cohesive hives won, just as Darwin said.
這個轉變不是一次性的大自然變異 只發生在細菌中 它再次發生 在約1億2千萬或1億4千萬年前 當一些獨居的黃蜂 開始建立一些簡單、原始的 巢穴 當越來越多胡蜂住在一個巢穴中 牠們別無選擇只得合作 因為很快的,牠們開始面對 其它蜂巢的競爭 而最有凝聚力的蜂巢會勝出 完全符合達爾文的理論
These early wasps gave rise to the bees and the ants that have covered the world and changed the biosphere. And it happened again, even more spectacularly, in the last half-million years when our own ancestors became cultural creatures, they came together around a hearth or a campfire, they divided labor, they began painting their bodies, they spoke their own dialects, and eventually they worshiped their own gods. Once they were all in the same tribe, they could keep the benefits of cooperation locked inside. And they unlocked the most powerful force ever known on this planet, which is human cooperation -- a force for construction and destruction.
這些早期黃蜂的模式 後來被蜜蜂,螞蟻等引用 逐漸傳佈到整個世界 並改變了整個生態體系 它又再次發生 不過更驚人的 在50萬年前 當我們人類的祖先 變成有文化的生物 他們聚集在火灶旁 開始分工合作 他們開始在身上繪圖紋身、說方言 逐漸的,他們崇拜屬於他們的神 當他們屬同一個部落 就可以把獲得的利益鎖在部落裡 人類的合作 開啟了地球上 史無前例的強大力量 創造的力量 與毀滅的力量
Of course, human groups are nowhere near as cohesive as beehives. Human groups may look like hives for brief moments, but they tend to then break apart. We're not locked into cooperation the way bees and ants are. In fact, often, as we've seen happen in a lot of the Arab Spring revolts, often those divisions are along religious lines. Nonetheless, when people do come together and put themselves all into the same movement, they can move mountains.
當然,人類的團體 一點都不如蜂巢那般有凝聚力 我們也許一開始看似如此 不久後就趨向分裂與毀滅 我們的團體模式並不像蜜蜂或螞蟻般堅固 事實上 就如我們在阿拉伯春天運動所見 我們的團體大多被宗教劃分 然而當人們群聚 因共同的目標而凝聚 大山可被剷平
Look at the people in these photos I've been showing you. Do you think they're there pursuing their self-interest? Or are they pursuing communal interest, which requires them to lose themselves and become simply a part of a whole?
看看這照片裡的人 你覺得他們在那 是在追求個人利益嗎? 或是為追求族群的榮勝 捨去自我 成為大群體中的一份子
Okay, so that was my Talk delivered in the standard TED way. And now I'm going to give the whole Talk over again in three minutes in a more full-spectrum sort of way.
好,以上就是我的演講 照著TED的標準方式呈現 現在我要把所有重點 用更全面的角度 在三分鐘內重複一次
(Music)
(音樂)
(Video) Jonathan Haidt: We humans have many varieties of religious experience, as William James explained. One of the most common is climbing the secret staircase and losing ourselves. The staircase takes us from the experience of life as profane or ordinary upwards to the experience of life as sacred, or deeply interconnected. We are Homo duplex, as Durkheim explained. And we are Homo duplex because we evolved by multilevel selection, as Darwin explained. I can't be certain if the staircase is an adaptation rather than a bug, but if it is an adaptation, then the implications are profound. If it is an adaptation, then we evolved to be religious.
(影片)Jonathan Haidt: 我們人類 有許多不同的宗教經驗 就像William James解釋的 其中最大的共同點是登上隱藏的階梯 捨去自我 這階梯引領我們 從世俗的,平凡的人生 昇華到神聖的境界 且緊密的與他人連結 我們人類是雙重的 如Durkheim所言 我們會變成這樣 是因多層級的演化篩選 如達爾文所言 我無法斷言這階梯的存在 是演化或是隨機變異 但如果它果真是演化 這含義極其深遠 若這是演化 我們勢必要成為虔誠的生物
I don't mean that we evolved to join gigantic organized religions. Those things came along too recently. I mean that we evolved to see sacredness all around us and to join with others into teams and circle around sacred objects, people and ideas. This is why politics is so tribal. Politics is partly profane, it's partly about self-interest, but politics is also about sacredness. It's about joining with others to pursue moral ideas. It's about the eternal struggle between good and evil, and we all believe we're on the good team.
我不是說我們演化是為了 參加龐大的宗教團體 這種東西是近代的產物 我是說我們進化出一種天性 能賦予自然神聖的含意 然後加入其他的群體 一同群聚在這神聖物品 人物或想法的周圍 這就是為何政治就像部落 一部分世俗,一部分是為了中飽私囊 但政治也是為了神聖的理想 與其他人緊密結合 追求崇高的道德理念 這是正邪之間永恆的抗衡 而我們老以為我們是正義的一方
And most importantly, if the staircase is real, it explains the persistent undercurrent of dissatisfaction in modern life. Because human beings are, to some extent, hivish creatures like bees. We're bees. We busted out of the hive during the Enlightenment. We broke down the old institutions and brought liberty to the oppressed. We unleashed Earth-changing creativity and generated vast wealth and comfort.
最重要的 若這階梯是存在的 它解釋了人們內心隱藏的 在現代生活中永恆的不滿足感 因為人類,或多或少 就像是群聚的蜜蜂 我們在啟蒙開化後離開舊巢 破壞舊有體系 把自由傳揚給受壓抑的人們 人類發揮前所未有的創造力 營造財富與舒適生活
Nowadays we fly around like individual bees exulting in our freedom. But sometimes we wonder: Is this all there is? What should I do with my life? What's missing? What's missing is that we are Homo duplex, but modern, secular society was built to satisfy our lower, profane selves. It's really comfortable down here on the lower level. Come, have a seat in my home entertainment center.
現今,我們四處翱翔 像蜜蜂一樣歡樂的享受自由 但有時,我們自問: 難道就是這樣了? 我的生命的目的是什麼? 是否缺少了什麼? 我們這樣想因為人類是雙重的 而現今存在的社會價值 是建立在低階的私人私利上 這樣低階的層次是很舒適沒錯 來,參觀我的家庭劇院
One great challenge of modern life is to find the staircase amid all the clutter and then to do something good and noble once you climb to the top. I see this desire in my students at the University of Virginia. They all want to find a cause or calling that they can throw themselves into. They're all searching for their staircase. And that gives me hope because people are not purely selfish.
現代人生活上的挑戰 是去找尋這混亂之中的階梯 並登上階梯頂端 做些美好與為高尚的事情 我維吉尼亞大學的學生們都渴望 尋找自己的使命感 讓他們可以全心投入、奉獻 他們全都在尋找各自的階梯 這讓我感到欣慰 因為人類不是全然自私自利
Most people long to overcome pettiness and become part of something larger. And this explains the extraordinary resonance of this simple metaphor conjured up nearly 400 years ago. "No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."
大多數的人想克服內心的卑鄙與自私 然後成為更遠大目標的一份子 這實在的解釋了 這個在約400年前 凝結成的簡單字句: "沒有人是座孤島 與他人完全隔絕 所有島嶼都是大陸的一部分 我們人同是如此"
JH: Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)