生活在廿一世紀的社會，經歷了警暴、疫症，和數不清的社會事件，我們只能透過媒體的棱鏡認識我們身邊發生的事情，我們的認知經驗就是被複製出來的，我們至多只能看破這世界的真實本身悖離了我們對它的定義。或者，真實世界並不是個幻象，而是它對自身的拙劣模仿。這裡想介紹布希亞在1981年寫的成名作《擬象與擬仿》(Simulacra and Simulation)。說來大家也許聽過電影《廿一世紀殺人網絡》的名句：「歡迎來到真實的荒漠。」(Welcome to the desert of the real.)另一位哲學家齊澤克甚至以此作為其中一本書名，而「真實沙漠」正是布希亞在書中的提出的概念。透過聖經傳道書的名言，布希亞為「擬象」(simulacra)下了定義：只有日常被模擬(simulates)出來的擬象才是真實，更關鍵的是，根本沒有被模擬的「真實」存在。布希亞以此探討「歷史」，還認為記憶的遺忘本身就是「大屠殺」(Holocaust)。當齊澤克在自己的書中討論布希亞「根本沒有作為海灣戰爭的事實」時，我們又怎樣看待「根本沒有六四屠城」或者「根本沒有不受控的疫情」這些說法呢？布希亞為我們提供更有趣的思考套路。

後現代面對的問題，其中之一就是虛無主義。因為宗教的沒落，人類失去了信仰，善惡不再分明，對很多事都失去熱情。故事就發生在兩個可憐的中年人，他們被出版社欺騙。絕望的他們決定創立一個教派，打著宗教的名義「拯救」現代的眾生。他們假想一個宗教吸納信徒，極為荒誕的是起源故事也是假的，由其中一位主角想像出來。他們騙了一些愚昧的主婦，以及對生活迷途的人。可是，主角其實是心地善良的騙子，內心充滿極大矛盾。於是，一個以歡樂包裝灰暗的「創教」故事便誕生了。

先進科技模糊了虛擬和現實的邊界，尤其是虛構影像帶來的真實感，使人更難抽離。《卡夫卡：迷宮白噩夢》故事講述一對英國青年男女，因大家都沈迷舊電影，就結伴到布拉格尋訪他們所迷戀的電影場景，在遊覽的過程中，發現了一部有關卡夫卡的秘密電影，當他們陷入了虛構的電影裡時，卻被設計在另一個虛擬的情節中。電影能有這種魔力，真實感讓人難以分辨，許多認真投入的演員往往不能自拔。還是書本簡單，闔上了就完結了。

作者是一個中國軍旅作家，近年潛心研究近代中西歷史，探索大國興衰之路，分析近代東西方社會動盪、交鋒的十字路口，對比中外歷史上二十位精英人物在關鍵時刻選擇之道路，破解歷史玄機，追尋近代中國迷失、落後的深層原因。

康熙皇帝與彼得大帝出生時代相同，在位時間相當，同樣具有非凡的雄才大略；然而，為何彼得大帝能使落後的俄羅斯一躍成為世界強國，而康熙皇帝開創的盛世卻逐漸走向「悲風驟至」的無底深淵？何以慈禧太后多才多藝、勇於任事，卻「越幫越忙」，讓充滿內憂外患的大清帝國滿目瘡痍；反觀維多利亞女王甘居幕後優游林泉，大英帝國卻能蒸蒸日上、高速發展？洪秀全率領太平軍撼動大清帝國，西鄉隆盛領導日本武士發動西南戰爭，兩者同樣是挑戰社會體制，為何西鄉隆盛已從「叛徒」轉化為「英雄」，但洪秀全至今仍毀譽參半？

在探討了「天地民物之變、兵火紛亂之跡、機鋒權謀之爭、興衰榮辱之慨」之後，作者提到：「我不是以看客的獵奇心態，去展示民族的膿瘡，而是真切地懷著『位卑未敢忘憂國』的心情，從近代中西方南轅北轍的發展之路背後，去擠一擠中華傳統文化和國民性格中的『毒素』，以期引起『療救的注意』」，而類似的心情也在他的書中表露無遺。其實，書名可謂一語中矢：天朝向左，世界向右。從來不認同普世價值，直到今日，仍是「毛病不除，惡習難改」，於是「中國崛起」就變成了全世界「超現實」的惡夢。

真實的感受隨著科技演變而擴張，我們是否仍然以眼見為真實的依據？甚麼來斷定真實與虛幻？做夢讓我們離開日常意識，所以非日常的意識狀態就是虛假嗎？而人類的意識又可以遊走多遠？

《Psychedelics and Technics 迷幻與科學》涵蓋從迷幻藥與實境虛擬技術，到自我意識、人工智能、死亡與禪之間的思辨與討論，節錄了由本土及國際學者、藝術家、學生、音樂家、銀行家、瑜伽教練和尋求庇護者組成的閱讀小組的摘錄。

‘What’s it going to be then, eh?’
There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete,

Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.

So begins ‘A Clockwork Orange’, Anthony Burgess’s classic coming-of-age tale set in a dystopian world where young punks like Alex, hopped up on ‘milk plus’, rule the night with flying fists and insatiable libidos.

Society is in a state of collective listlessness and a cultural dark-age where the only life worth living is a life of work or violence; where no one reads anymore (gasp!); and where the government, in a bid to win re-election, decides to subject prisoners to experimental treatments to ‘cure’ them of their anti-social tendencies.

Alex is one person who is forced to undergo this experimental treatment, called the Ludovico Technique, in which he is strapped down Hannibal Lecter-style and shown film clips of murder, rape, and war, all the while being administered drugs that make him sick and nauesous.

The treatment is deemed a success and Alex becomes the government’s poster-boy for its ‘successful’ fight against criminal activity.

But can one’s proclivity towards violence ever be forced out of the person as if it were a dumpling lodged in the wrong pipe? Even if it could, is that the kind of society we would want to live in?

‘Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man’ is the famous line uttered by the prison chaplain who counsels Alex on the merits, and pitfalls, of the Ludovico Technique.

A Clockwork Orange was first published in 1962 to mostly positive reviews and gained a committed following with the avant garde set like like William Burroughs and Andy Warhol. The book was then adapted into film in 1971 by legendary director Stanley Kubrick.

In a strange, or perhaps, not-so-strange twist of fate, Kubrick’s film, which sought to depict the book’s many scenes of graphic sex and violence, inspired members of the public to commit copycat crimes based on those same scenes -- the strangeness being that Burgess wrote the book as a polemic of sorts ​against​ violence but nevertheless provided the material for the creation of more violence.

In 1982 Anthony Burgess wrote a short essay entitled ‘A Last Word on Violence’. In it, he observed that ‘[v]iolence fascinates because it is the obverse of the one thing that humanity shares with God -- the ability to create. Creation requires talent and violence does not, but bothhave the same result - transformation of natural material, excitement bordering on the orgasmatic, a sense of power.’ Which begs the question: is there a way out? Burgess is not optimistic: ‘We have all come to terms with violence; it is our daily news and our nightly entertainment. Once I saw a public way out of it, now I can only see hope in the refusal of the individual to accept violence as a norm of our society and, in consequence, to be prepared for martyrdom. It is a grim prospect.’