Sir Ken Robinson: Do schols kill creativity?

ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66

Good morning. How are you? It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving.

There have been three themes, haven't there, running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about.

One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here. Just the variety of it and the range of it.

The second is, that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, in terms of the future, no idea how this may play out.

I have an interest in education -- actually, what I find is, everybody has an interest in education; don't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education -- actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly, if you work in education, you're not asked. And you're never asked back, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, "What do you do," and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh my god," you know, "why me? My one night out all week." But if you ask people about their education, they pin you to the wall. Because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right?, like religion, and money, and other things.

I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do, we have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp.

If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time. And yet we're meant to be educating them for it.
So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.

And the third part of this is that we've all agreed nonetheless on the really extraordinary capacity that children have, their capacities for innovation. I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she, just seeing what she could do. And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent.

And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.

So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. [applause] Thank you.

That was it, by the way, thank you very much. Soooo, 15 minutes left. Well, I was born ...

I heard a great story recently, I love telling it, of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson, she was 6 and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, "What are you drawing?" and the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute."

When my son was 4 in England -- actually he was 4 everywhere, to be honest; if we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was 4 that year -- he was in the nativity play. Do you remember the story? No, it was big, it was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it, "Nativity II." But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about. We considered this to be one of the lead parts. We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!" He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in. They come in bearing gifts, and they bring gold, frankincense and myrhh. This really happened -- we were sitting there and we think they just went out of sequence, we talked to the little boy afterward and we said, "You OK with that" and he said "Yeah, why, was that wrong?" -- they just switched, I think that was it. Anyway, the three boys came in, little 4-year-olds with tea towels on their heads, and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." The second boy said, "I bring you myrhh." And the third boy said, "Frank sent this."

What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong.

Now, I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original. If you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong.

And we run our companies like this, by the way, we stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make.

And the result is, we are educating people out of their creative capacities.

Picasso once said this, he said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it. So why is this?

I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago, in fact we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, so you can imagine what a seamless transition this was. Actually we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Were you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being 7? I never thought of it. I mean, he was 7 at some point; he was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? How annoying would that be? "Must try harder."

Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now," to William Shakespeare, "and put the pencil down. And stop speaking like that. It's confusing everybody."

Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition, actually. My son didn't want to come. I've got two kids, he's 21 now, my daughter's 16; he didn't want to come to Los Angeles. He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England. This was the love of his life, Sarah. He'd known her for a month. Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16. Anyway, he was really upset on the plane, and he said, "I'll never find another girl like Sarah." And we were rather pleased about that, frankly, because she was the main reason we were leaving the country.

But something strikes you when you move to America and when you travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same heirarchy of subjects. Every one, doesn't matter where you go, you'd think it would be otherwise but it isn't. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth.

And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are nomally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think maths is very important but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting?

Truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.

If you were to visit education as an alien and say what's it for, public education, I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners, I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it. They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so there. And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement. They're just a form of life, another form of life. but they're rather curious and I say this out of affection for them, there's something curious about them, not all of them but typically, they live in their heads, they live up there, and slightly to one side. They're disembodied. They look upon their bodies as a form of transport for their heads, don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings.

If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final night, and there you will see it, grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat, waiting until it ends so they can go home and write a paper about it.

Now our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. The whole system was invented round the world there were no public systems of education really before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism.

So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas: Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds that you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician; don't do art, you're not going to be an artist. Benign advice -- now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution.

And the second is, academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence because the universities designed the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can't afford to go on that way.

In the next 30 years. according to Unesco, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. [12:27] More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about -- technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population.

Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job. If you didn't have a job it's because you didn't want one. And I didn't want one, frankly.

But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other. It's a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.

We know three things about intelligence: One, it's diverse, we think about the world in all the ways we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn't divided into compartments. In fact, creativity, which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value, more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things. The brain is intentionally -- by the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpus collosum, and it's thicker in women. Following on from Helen yesterday, I think this is probably why women are better at multitasking, because you are, aren't you, there's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life.

If my wife is cooking a meal at home, which is not often, thankfully, but you know, she's doing (oh, she's good at some things) but if she's cooking, you know, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgery over here; if I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in I get annoyed, I say "Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here, give me a break." (You know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it happen, remember that old chestnut, I saw a great T-shirt recently that said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?")

And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called Epiphany which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I'm fascinated by how people got to be there. It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, she's called Gillian Lynne, have you heard of her? Some have. She's a choreographer and everybody knows her work. She did Cats, and Phantom of the Opera, she's wonderful. I used to be on the board of the Royal Ballet, in England, as you can see, and Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said Gillian, how'd you get to be a dancer? And she said it was interesting, when she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school, in the 30s, wrote her parents and said, "We think Gillian has a learning disorder." She couldn't concentrate, she was fidgeting. I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available condition. People weren't aware they could have that.

Anyway she went to see this specialist, in this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother and she was led and sat on a chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this doctor talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school. And at the end of it -- because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on, little kid of 8 -- in the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, "Gillian I've listened to all these things that your mother's told me, and I need to speak to her privately." He said, "Wait here, we'll be back, we won't be very long," and they went and left her.

But as they went out the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk, and when they got out the room, he said to her mother, "Just stand and watch her." And the minute they left the room, she said, she was on her feet, moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick; she's a dancer. Take her to a dance school."

I said, "What happened?"

She said, "She did. I can't tell you how wonderful it was. We walked in this room and it was full of people like me, people who couldn't sit still. People who had to move to think." Who had to move to think. They did ballet, they did tap, they did jazz, they did modern, they did contemporary. She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School, she became a soloist, she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet, she eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School and founded her own company, the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, and met Andrew Lloyd Weber.

She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multimillionaire.

Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.

Now, I think -- [applause] What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson. I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth, for a particular commodity, and for the future, it won't serve us.

We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children. There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, "If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." And he's right.

What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about. And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are, and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future -- by the way, we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it. Thank you very much.

하지만 그걸 잊지 못한 주인공 댄 아저씨의 좌충우돌 이야기.
아직까지 우리나라의 정서상... 이해가 되지 않는 부분이 많은 이야기.
다만... 그 많은 가족들이 모여서 즐거운 한때를 보내는 모습은 열라 아름답더라.

정말 오랫만에 보는 줄리엣 비노쉬~
지적이면서 열정이 느껴지는 아름다움은 여전하고...
스티브 카렐...  The Office의 맛탱이 200% 간 지점장 모습은 어디로 던져놓고,
아내를 잃고 세 딸을 키우면서 지칠대로 지쳐버린,
그래서 자신의 삶에서 사랑이란 단어를 다시 사용할 수 있을지조차 확신하지 못하는
그래서, 자신의 감정이 무엇인지 제대로 판단하지 못하는 가장의 모습을 제대로 연기해줬다.

이 봄날은 열라 따뜻하지만 내 삶의 봄은 언제나 올지 궁금하신 분들,
 숨쉬는 것조차 힘들다고 느끼는 분들께 추천해줄 만한 귀여운 영화.

인상깊은 대사...
"사랑은 느낌이 아니라, 능력이예요"

(경제적 능력이 아닌... 걷기, 숨쉬기, 말하기 등과 같은...)

아뭏든...
3월 초 무렵에 본 SNL의 한 에피소드에는 Ellen Page라는 여배우 아이;가 호스트로 출연했다.
자기 소개를 하면서 바로 꺼내는 말이,
자기가 Juno라는 영화 덕분에 아카데미상 후보에 오르고.. 어쩌고...
음 그런가보다; 했는데,
이 에피소드에서 하는 꼬라지를 보니, 참 귀엽고 발랄하다는 인상.
해서, Juno를 한번 땡겨보기로 했다.

내용은 별 거 없다.
평범한 가정에서 학교 잘 댕기던 10대 소녀가 친구와의 하룻밤 불장난으로 인해, 임신을 하게 되고,
현재 사정상 도저히 아이를 키울 수 없는 주인공 Juno는
결국 친구의 조언으로 아이를 입양시키기로 결정.
그렇게 해서 아이는 우여곡절끝에 양부모의 품에 안기고
Juno와 그녀를 임신시킨 친구는 진정할 사랑을 깨달아 잘 먹고 잘 살았노라~ 하는 거.

이렇게 놓고 보면 참 별것 아닌 영화지만,
그 별것 아니고 상식적인 내용을,
절대 오버하지 않으면서 전달하는 분위기 속에서, 자연스러운 웃음을 안겨준다.
그래서인지, 스트리퍼 출신으로 각본을 맡은 Diablo Cody(예명 하고는;;) 가
이번 아카데미에서 각본상을 받았다는 거.

Arrested Development에서 맛탱이 간 아버지와 아들로 등장한
Michael Sera와 Jason Bateman도 있고,
The Office에서 왕재수 Dwight로 나오는 Rainn Wilson의 반가운 모습들도 재미를 더해준다.

솔직히... 어떤 부분을 통해서 이 영화의 재미를 설명하고,
한 번쯤 관람을 권할 수 있을지 생각하기도 쉽지가 않다.
대사가 참 재미난다, 톡톡 튀는 연기가 짱이다... 머 이런 걸로는 어렵고...
그냥, 우리 주변에서도 일어날 수 있는 일상 생활을 화면을 통해 바라보는 듯한 느낌이랄까?

어제 본 '추격자' 처럼 극도의 몰입감이 있는 것도 아니고,
배우들이 졸라 쭉쭉빵빵이라 한번 꼭 봐줘야한다... 이것도 아니고,
아, 한가지,
최신 영어, 특히 미국 10대의 영어를 공부하고 싶은 열망이 자기 방 천장을 뚫고 나갈 정도라면,
꼭 한번 볼 만하다. -_-;

영화가 시작되면서 나오는 지하철 6호선 망원역과 낯익은 거리의 모습에,
"엄훠 울동네당" 했던 반가움은
2시간여의 러닝타임이 끝난 이후,
"아 ㅆㅂ 집에 어케 가지;;;"하는 장난섞인 공포로 바뀌었다.

유영철 사건을 모티브로 삼기만 했을 뿐, 이 사건의 재현은 아니라고 하며,
'살인의 추억'(이하 살추)과도 이래저래 비교대상이 될 수 밖에 없는 내용과 설정.
그래서인지, 영화관에서 돌아오자마자 살추를 또 한 번 돌렸다.

쇼파에 몸을 묻고 멍하니 볼 수 있는 한국형 대중성과 함께,
매니악한 냄새를 만만찮게 풍겼던 살추와 달리,
추격자의 경우, "아뛰 꼭 저렇게까지 찍어야 했어??" 하는 말이 튀어나오게 만들 정도의
Hardcore / gore 함이 돋보이며,
특히 그 몰입도 하나만큼은 어떤 헐리우드 대작이라도
가볍게 따돌릴 수 있을 만큼임은 분명하다.

워낙 그런거 신경 안쓰고 살다보니,
김윤석, 하정우 두 주연배우에 대해서는 전.혀.; 아는 것도 없었지만,
정말 대단한 연기를 보여준다.
너무 대단한 나머지,
이 영화가, 두 사람의 커리어에 오히려 방해가 되지 않을까 하는 걱정마저 하게 된다.
(실제로 이너넷상의 한 관객은 자신의 소감에서,
하정우씨를 실제로 보게 된다면 도망갈지도 모르겠다고까지 하더라;;)

검, 경찰 및 관련직 종사자 분들이라면 상당히 불편한 마음으로 볼 수 밖에 없는 영화겠지만,
모르겠다. 그 상황에서 저 인간들이라면 저럴 수 밖에 없었겠지...하는 생각도 들게 만든다.

사람마다 취향이 다르다고 생각하며 살아오는 인간인지라,
워낙 추천 같은 것은 거...........의 하지 않는 본인이지만,
정말 권해주고 싶은 영화다.
단, 아무리 잘 만들고 재미있는 영화라도,
피가 한방울이라도 튀었다가는 그날 섭취한 음식물을 재확인하는 분이라면, 피해주셔야 할 듯.

헐리우드식 리메이크가 웬지 한번 보고 싶게 만드는 영화이기도 한데,
역시나 뉴스를 뒤져보니, 100만불 정도에 판권이 넘어갔단다.
좋은 결과 있기를 바람.

결국 개봉 후 1년이 넘어서야 디비디를 빌려서; 보고 말았는데,

생각보다 '재미'가 있다.

한국영화적인 촌빨은 어쩔 수 없지만,

그 촌빨에도 불구하고, 2시간여의 상영시간이 무의식중에 잘 흘러가게 만든다면,

영화로서 임무는 완수한 것이라 본다.

포스터와 광고카피부터 스토리를 짐작하게 만들면서,

 '촌빨'을 대놓고 들이댄 것도 하나의 전략일 수 있겠다.

그 촌빨이 싫다면 보러 올 생각조차 하지 말라는 듯한 포스터 ㅡㅡ;;

그리고 촌빨인지 아닌지 판단조차 어렵게 만드는 ㅡㅡ;;

김아중의 귀여운; 연기도 나쁘진 않았다.

(관점에 따라서는... 최악으로 보일 수도 있겠지만... 내 눈엔... ㅡㅡ;;;;;;;;)

영화 내용이 내용이니만큼, 성형에 대한 개인적인 생각을 말해본다면,

어... 난 진짜 신경 안쓰는데 ㅡㅡ;;;;;

진짜로 ㅡㅡ;;;;; 하등가 말등가 ㅡㅡ;;;;;;

내 여자만 안하면 돼~~ 이딴 생각 하지도 않는데 ㅡㅡ;;;;;;;;;

언제나 그렇듯이,
본 게임에 참여하는 이들의 생각보다는,
주변의 훈수가 더욱 멋지고 특출나 보인다.
인생이라는 게임에서도,
본인 자신의 생각보다는,
주변인들의 조언과 충고가 더욱 가치있고, 좋은 선택일 수도 있다는 선입견.
참 벗어나기 힘들다.

결국 결정을 내리는 것은 자기 자신이고,
가장 중요한 가치는 그 결정이 내려진 과정이 아닌,
결정을 내리고 실행에 옮기는 결단력인 것을,
몸소 깨닫기 전에는 절대 알지 못한다.

(물론... 신중함과 결단력의 최상급 믹스를 찾아낼 수 있다면,
그보다 더 좋은 것은 없겠지만
아직까지 개인적으로는, 일단 지르고 보는 것을 더 좋아한다.
덜 익은거겠지?)

그 결정이 실패를 가져오더라도,
그 실패에서 우리는 많은 것을 배울 수 있다.
어차피 실패를 가져올 결정이었다면,
어차피 다가올 실패였다면,
피할 수는 없었으리라.
그래서 후회라는 것은 정말 길바닥의 껌딱지보다도 쓸모없는 것.

그래도 그러한 실패와 후회를 대략 2%라도 줄여보고 싶다면,
이 책은 0.2%는 도움이 될 듯도 싶다.

번역품질은 엿같고,
번역체임을 과시하는 듯한 문장체도 열라 맘에 안들지만,
역시나... 돈주고 산 책은 아닌지라 ㅡㅡ;;;

저자와 같이 1인 기업으로 움직이면서,
엄청나게 바쁜 스케줄로 시간을 운용해야 하는 사람이 아니라면,
상당히 다른 나라 이야기로 들리기 쉬운 내용들로 가득.
하지만 역시, 시간이야말로 정말 자신이 하기 나름이라는 사실을 깨닫게 해 준다.
뽑아낼 만한 것들 -

1. 써 버린 시간과 돈은 반드시 기록하라 -
 - 어디로 새어나갔는지 머리를 벅벅 긁게 만드는 구녕들을,
   지금 당장 막을 수는 없더라도, 일단 그 존재를 의식함으로써,
   막을 수 있는 방도를 찾아낼 수 있다.

2. 1시간은 15분이 4개라는 발상 -
- 뭔가에 집중하지 못하고 산만하기만 한 자신이 혹시 ADD 환자가 아닐까 의심했던 적이 있는가?
   ADD가 국가보안법에 위반되는 것도 아닌데 왜 걱정인가?
   한가지 일에 집중할 수 있는 최대치를 먼저 찾아내어,
   그 최대치 안에서 할 수 있는 모든 것을 하고, 미련없이 다른 것으로 넘어가자.
   그 최대치가 비록 15분에 불과할 지라도.

3. 작심삼일은 사람은 3일마다 계획을 세워라 -
- 얼~~ 이 책에서 줏어낼 수 있었던 가장 커다란 수확.
   3일동안만 술 끊어야쥐... -_-
  
4. '15분 밖에 없다'와 '15분이나 있다'의 커다란 차이 -
- 말 나온 김에 생각해보자. 15분 내에 내가 할 수 있는 것은?
   ...똥싸면서 담배 한대 피워도 15분은 가더라...

5. 3초의 수고를 아끼지 말자 -
- 가뜩이나 중구난방으로 느껴지는 내용 중에 난데없이 튀어나온 영업직 격언인데,
   밑져야 본전이니 일단 말을 걸고 들이대어 보자.
   어떻게 될 지는 저 위에 양반도 모른다.(아나? 알면 말 쫌 해 주지?)
  
1시간, 60분, 60초라는 단위 역시 인간이 만들어 낸 인위적인 것.
인간이 만든 것을 인간이 재구성할 수 없을 리 없다.
시간을 자유로이 가지고 놀아라. 꼴리는 대로.

... 돈주고 사서 본 책이 아니라서 쫌 다행.......... -_- 

'역동적인 일터를 만들고 싶다면,

자신부터 역동적인 사람이 되어라~'

지금 내게 필요한 것은...
그따위 뻔한 이야기들이 아니라,
사랑일 뿐이다(풉)

번역서는 돈주고 보고 싶지 않다는 생각에 따라,
돈주고 본 책이 아니라서 그나마 다행.
그래도 Seattle의 Pike Place라는 곳에는,
한번 가 보고는 싶어졌다.

아파하고 괴로워해 봤자 인생에 도움되는 것은 없다.
고로, 행복하자.

...는 생각 따위... 이미 하고 있었잖아.
다만, 세상이 그 실천에 도움을 주지 않고 있을 뿐이야... ㅡ.ㅡ;;