tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-100491942024-02-07T22:59:53.076-05:00ProleDo not think what you what to think until you know what you ought to knowProlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.comBlogger270125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-70390807107815741982020-11-01T23:21:00.002-05:002021-06-25T14:16:29.882-04:00Día de los Muertos / 萬聖節<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRSqaxZBVQsagpWUhZDHH-gOZ-2_O6MLK1-EgUCBpW58c28FUC73t6nPtU6DzoTsSCR45yxu8RREdZCY9ssOthAx8hUZD5bdzDK4rLikQv4MGx_zHCqta4pIGpNWJcBWyFmE-s2Q/s2048/2020-10-30.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1152" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRSqaxZBVQsagpWUhZDHH-gOZ-2_O6MLK1-EgUCBpW58c28FUC73t6nPtU6DzoTsSCR45yxu8RREdZCY9ssOthAx8hUZD5bdzDK4rLikQv4MGx_zHCqta4pIGpNWJcBWyFmE-s2Q/w225-h400/2020-10-30.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
去年此刻我還住在新英格蘭的小鎮,走路十分鐘有幾座森林與草原,夜晚後院裡有螢火蟲出沒。每周去學校幾次,兩三周去一次隔壁鎮的超市,超市走道邊排列著橙紅色的南瓜,肉桂香氣逼人。楓紅的季節,焦慮著論文與求職,等待第一場雪如往常無聲地降臨。
<br />
<br />
今年在加州的大城,疫情肆虐,在數據在關閉的店鋪在遠方的屍體,無聲地狂飆。前幾天第一次實體見到同事,隔著口罩與六呎距離,陽光暖和。各家門前,取代千篇一律草皮的,是艷麗招展的沙漠與地中海植物。這裡不下雪。山火在不遠處蔓延。
<br />
<br />
今年與去年的萬聖節,恍如隔世。
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-40179294255744600662020-05-14T06:22:00.000-04:002020-05-17T04:46:16.292-04:00From Lacan to Darwin, by Dylan Evans<br />
When finishing <i><a href="http://www.davidbardschwarz.com/pdf/evans.pdf">An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis</a></i> (Chinese translation: <a href="https://www.sanmin.com.tw/product/index/001017629" target="_blank">拉岡精神分析詞彙</a>), Dylan Evans was about halfway through the transition from Lacanian Psychoanalysis to Evolutionary Psychology. The process of writing the dictionary revealed to him the "internal contradictions and lack of external confirmation" in Lacanian theory, and the obfuscatory language of Lacan "did not hide a deeper meaning, but was in fact a direct manifestation of the confusion inherent in Lacan's own thought."
In an article, <a href="https://12ed659e-a004-1e06-31ab-fe17c3032044.filesusr.com/ugd/519faf_f4e5ddcc6612d8072b9d59cdb90998c0.pdf">From Lacan to Darwin</a>, he laid out the story of his intellectual journey and explained why he rejected Lacanian theory.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>
<b>1. Frustration from clinical works</b><br />
<br />
Many Lacanian theorists today in the English world are literary critics and have nothing to do with practicing psycotherapy, but Dylan Evans was a practicing therapist (Lacan himself, after all, was a psychoanalyst rather than a literary critic). He had training in Argentina and Britan and had experiences of psychoanalysis in London, Paris, and Buenos Aires. From a practician's point of view, he had wanted to put the method into practice but gradually found that
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">Whenever I did succeed in helping someone, it was always because I had put my Lacanian theory to one side for the moment, and simply responded out of intuition, empathy, or common sense. Conversely, whenever I did what was I supposed to do according to my Lacanian training, it rarely helped. In fact, it often left people confused and upset. (p.5)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">Whether used in the clinic or the seminar room, Lacan's ideas are hopelessly inadequate because they are predicated on a false theory of human nature. I came to realise this when I started to treat patients – the clinical reality did not fit with Lacan's theory. Literary scholars are less likely to notice the discrepancy, since textual interpretation is much more malleable than phobias, panic attacks and other symptoms experienced by real, live human beings. (p.1)
</span></blockquote>
This then led to a deep doubt about the truthfulness of Lacanian theory:
<br />
<br />
<b>2. A false theory of human nature: Lacan against ethology and cognitive science</b>
<br />
<br />
The truthfulness of Lacanian theory that Dylan Evans questioned about refers to the relationship between Lacanian theory and a set of modern psychological or linguistic theories, and the relationship with evidence.
<br />
<br />
Dylan Evans had never heard of Lacan before he graduated from Linguistics and went to Argentina for work. In Argentina, He found that, in sharp contrast to Britan, psychoanalysis dominated the field of psychology, and much of that was specifically Lacanian. He joined a group of Argentinian psychoanalysts to study the works of Lacan, and thought he might be able to input his linguistics knowledge into the discussion. He soon realized that Lacan hardly ever mentioned the kind of linguistics he learned, like Chomsky, but referred most frequently to Ferdinand de Saussure, whom he had studied only in literary theory rather than linguistics.
<br />
<br />
In 1997, Dylan Evans became a PhD student in the Philosophy department at LSE and exposed to the series of seminars on evolutionary psychology, which then became his new worldview replacing Lacanian theory. In contrast to evolutionary psychology, Lacan rejected two bases of evolutionary psychology: ethology and cognitive science.
<br />
<br />
Traditionally, psychologists clung to the idea of an 'unbridgeable gap' between humans and animals, and resist the possibility that the study of animal behaviors may provide some insights for the study of human minds. In 1936, however, Lacan presented his 'mirror stage' theory by invoking Henri Wallon's experiment in which Wallon compared the reactions of human infants and chimpanzees to seeing their reflection in a mirror. Despite using this comparative method which is common in evolutionary studies,
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">Rather than taking concept of the mirror stage into the uncharted territory of evolutionary psychology, as others were to do decades later, he tried to bring it into the fold of Freudianism. During the course of the next decades, Lacan's early remarks about the mirror stage as a phase of biological maturation became increasingly overlayed by less developmental interpretations. By the early 1950s, the mirror stage was no longer simply a moment in the life of the infant, but 'a permanent structure of subjectivity' (Evans, 1996: 115), an 'essential libidinal relationship with the body image' (Lacan, 1953b: 14). (p.9)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
His much-vaunted ‘return to Freud’, announced in 1953, led Lacan to explore those aspects of Freud’s work that did not fit so easily with modern biology. When he came to examine Freud’s concept of the ‘death instinct’, for example, Lacan quickly realised the impossibility of giving it a biological meaning. But instead of concluding that the Freudian concept was therefore redundant, Lacan tried to rescue it by insisting that Freud had not meant it as a biological concept; the death instinct was 'not a question of biology', Lacan now claimed (Lacan, 1953a: 102). But Freud’s writings were not so pliable; his theory of instincts was couched in an explicitly biological framework. Lacan was therefore forced to invoke tortuous paradoxes to rescue his non-biological interpretation of Freud; 'Freudian biology has nothing to do with biology', he claimed (Lacan, 1954-55: 75). (p.10)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
By the mid-1950s Lacan was becoming increasingly influenced by the French anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss, who argued that 'nature' and 'culture' were separated by a massive ontological chasm. This spurred Lacan to pursue his culturalist reading of Freud even further. Every biological term in Freud's work was reinterpreted as a metaphor for some cultural phenomenon. Freud's remarks on the phallus, Lacan claimed, had nothing to do with something so banal as a mere biological organ; they referred to a cultural symbol. Freud's false theory about the 'vaginal orgasm' could be rescued by arguing that it was not about biology but about psychological satisfaction (Lacan, 1972-73: 145). (p.10)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
This strategy was doomed, however. It appeared to save Freud's work from refutation by modern biology, but at the price of removing all empirical import. The biological Freud was wrong, but at least he advanced clear, testable claims. The cultural-linguistic Freud that Lacan invented, on the other hand, was completely untestable. He was not merely impervious to contradictory evidence in biology; he was impervious to any evidence at all. Lacan rescued Freud from a fatal encounter with modern biology by removing him from the world of science altogether.
</span></blockquote>
To the other pillar of evolutionary psychology, the trajectory of Lacan's thoughts is similar: starts at discussing and invoking but ends at completely detaching.
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
The cognitive revolution swept through psychology in the 1960s, displacing the behaviourist paradigm that had held sway since the 1920s. Its origins, however, lie in the 1950s. If one day had to be singled out as the birthday of cognitive science, it is surely September 11, 1956. It was on that day that three seminal papers were presented at a historic meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Allen Newell and Herbert Simon spoke about a 'logic theory machine', inaugurating the modern discipline of Artificial Intelligence (Newell and Simon, 1956). Noam Chomsky described 'three models for the description of language' in a paper that has been described as marking the birth of modern linguistics (Dennett, 1995: 384; Chomsky, 1956). And George Miller presented a paper about short-term memory that is now recognised as one of the foundational papers of cognitive psychology (Miller, 1956). (p.12)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
Lacan's own interest in the computational model of the mind dates from even earlier. In 1955, a
year before the birth of cognitive science, and a decade before the cognitive revolution was in full
swing, Lacan gave a lecture to the French Psychoanalytic Society on the subject of 'Psychoanalysis
and Cybernetics' (Lacan, 1954-55: 294-308). In this lecture, he explored some basic concepts of
computational theory, including binary code and the use of AND and OR gates to compute logical
functions. Borrowing from Norbert Wiener, the mathematician who, along with Arturo Rosenbleuth, coined the term 'cybernetics' in 1947, Lacan urged his audience to think of the mind in information-processing terms, and stressed the importance of linguistics in this enterprise. (p.13)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
Yet, as with his early hunches about the importance of ethology, Lacan soon abandoned his interest
in cybernetics and computational theory. (p.13)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
The turnaround is evident in Lacan’s later work, where he increasingly turns away from his 1950s emphasis on Saussurian and Jakobsonian linguistics, back towards a hydraulic model of the mind. By the 1970s, Freud’s mythical ‘mental fluid’, the libido, has regained centre stage in Lacan's thought in the guise of the term 'jouissance' (Evans, 1998: 11). But nowhere is Lacan’s change of heart more evident than in his remarks after meeting Chomsky at MIT in 1975. According to one account, Lacan was horrified by Chomsky’s approach to the study of language. 'If that is science', he commented after his conversation with the great American linguist, 'then I prefer to be a poet!' (p.14)
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
Some support for this view can be found, paradoxically, in Lacan's attempts to develop a mathematical notation for psychoanalytic theory. His formulae and his diagrams give an initial impression of scientific rigour, at least to a non-scientifically trained eye, but on closer examination it becomes evident that they break even the most elementary rules of mathematics (<a href="https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=x6spAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false">Sokal & Bricmont, 1998</a>). These equations are supposedly there to give substance to Lacan’s avowed desire to formalise psychoanalysis. The fact that they are mathematically meaningless gives the lie to that claim. If Lacan was really concerned with formalising his discipline, he would surely have taken more care to get his maths right. The fact that he didn't suggests that he was more interested in the rhetoric of formalisation than the reality. For Lacan, 'formalisation' and 'mathematisation' were just metaphors, mere sound-bites for his neo-Surrealist techno-poetry. No wonder, then, that when he saw Chomsky engaged in a truly rigorous attempt at genuine formalisation, Lacan backed away in horror. (p.14)
</span></blockquote>
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-25498934592450472062019-06-03T11:52:00.001-04:002021-06-25T14:17:07.843-04:00Ravenswood因為報名了企業研究課程,最近必需讀完海量的資料,其中就包括這本書:<a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100367790">Ravenswood: The Steelworkers' Victory and the Revival of American Labor</a> (<a href="https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=articles">導論連結</a>)
<br />
<br />
這本書是關於 1990-1992 年間,美國西維吉尼亞州的一個鋁礦加工廠 Ravenswood Aluminum Company (RAC) 的工會,如何在遭到資方惡意鎖廠 (lockout)、引進工賊之後,透過漫長而複雜的鬥爭反擊成功的故事。除了傳統工運抗爭必需的工人團結與組織動員之外 (撐了兩年),這故事的重點是 "綜合戰" 與 "敵情研究"。<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>本來工會也是按照傳統的打法,顧好基層組織,拉起糾察線,再透過法律戰與資方周旋。但一方面因為是被鎖廠,準備周全的資方還能夠找工賊來上工,減少經濟損失,另一方面法律戰緩不濟急,無法形成有效壓力讓資方回談判桌。工會也發現檯面上的老闆堅決不讓步,不計代價要瓦解工會。抗爭於是陷入困境。
<br />
<br />
1980 年代是美國工運的低谷,傳統的工運策略在政府保守化的趨勢下節節敗退,迫使工會在 1990 年代開始嘗試各種新方法。現在我們熟悉的種種策略,例如社區組織動員,透過政治人物施壓,乃至訴諸消費者抵制血汗商品,與環保團體結盟,號召國際工運相挺等等,在這場抗爭中全用上了。
<br />
<br />
但這些策略的運用必須有目標有章法,其中關鍵就是要找出真正對公司決策有決定權的人物,或是對決策者有決定性影響力的人物,分析其利害關係網絡,找出痛點有效施壓,而非亂槍打鳥。Ravenswood 案例的困難在於,這公司不是上市公司,各種資訊不透明,名義上的老闆擁有公司全部股份,但又不是真正的 "控制" 者,真正的控制者是遠在千里之外的 Marc Rich,帳面上跟這公司沒有關係,卻透過層層委託契約與代理人左右著這家公司的營運,這家公司名義上的老闆其實只是他的一個小合作夥伴。此人因為逃稅被美國通緝,長年住在瑞士,在全球各地都有原物料生意,一度掌控全球鋁運輸量的 40%,富可敵國。
<br />
<br />
工會光為了搞清楚這一點就花了好幾個月,派出研究團隊像偵探一樣四處調查,讀法院檔案、讀公司報告、讀稅務資料、找各種人套情報、分析內線消息,最後終於弄清楚這個人的來頭,以及他遍布全球的生意網絡。而且,這些還不能只是推測,必須要有憑有據,才能夠應付資方的各種法律戰。
<br />
<br />
根據這樣的 "敵情研究",工會開始鎖定 Marc Rich 的全球商業網絡,一步步施壓。Marc Rich 經營其商業帝國的手法除了逃稅之外,還有很多不能告人的黑幕,因此保持隱密是其經營的重要條件,很少接受媒體採訪,透過各種手法間接控制,隱匿蹤跡。工會的策略便針對這一點進行打擊。此人住在瑞士,工會便派人前往瑞士,找瑞士的左翼政黨與工會合作,在國會揭發他的種種惡行,並結合當時瑞士加入歐盟的審查過程,讓此議題的處理最後上升為瑞士能否加入歐盟的條件之一。此人在捷克、委內瑞拉、羅馬尼亞等國皆有投資計畫,工會便前往這些國家,與當地進步工會及政治人物合作,一起開記者會揭發他如何收買官員、賤價收購資產,還曾經將相關資料通報捷克外交部,並直寫信給當時的捷克總統哈維爾告狀,最後擋下他在該國的投資案。
<br />
<br />
工會也找上公司在荷蘭的融資銀行,以工人受迫害的處境進行遊說,並警告銀行該公司現任經營者的惡行將會招來美國政府重大罰款,導致投資泡湯。工會還去各種原物料商的專業會議上散發文宣,並配合各種媒體採訪,讓此人的惡跡無所遁形,成為眾人敬而遠之的對象。(此人與其他公司經營者當然也不是吃素的,對工會的行動也使出各種手段反制,其中也包括常見的跟監與死亡威脅。)
<br />
<br />
如此這般的全球精準追擊,最後終於迫使 Marc Rich 出手撤換了公司領導人,並指示新的經營階層與工會重啟談判,最後讓工人成功復職。此案例也成為美國工運逐漸走出低谷的標誌之一,並使此種 "敵情研究" 與綜合戰策略成為工運的常備工具。
<br />
<br />
(好沒讀這麼多字又沒摘要的東西了,好累... =_=)
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-87620339743757133292018-11-14T20:11:00.001-05:002021-06-25T14:17:33.785-04:00Reading Notes 2018.11.14# <a href="http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-221-rob-reich-on-is-philanthropy-bad-for-democracy.html" target="_blank">Rob Reich on "Is philanthropy bad for democracy?"</a>, from <i>Rationally Speaking</i><br />
--Many philanthropists donate to fancy schools that really don't need extra money. Maybe public policy should be: tax-deductible donations to support public schools should be conditioned on whether or not the school that you're supporting with your donation has a certain percentage of kids who are on free or induced lunch.<br />
--It's true that the philanthropists could have had put the money into business or politics rather than philanthropy. But when an individual creates a company, as you were describing, or say gets elected to government and then has an opportunity to direct public resources, there are forms of accountability that are kind of internal to the marketplace and internal to the operation of government, that hold that power in check in a certain way. Philanthropic power by contrast is almost wholly unaccountable. >>這一點也是台灣的財團喜歡用財團法人控制企業的原因吧。台灣就連企業都沒有完整的監督與制衡,更別提慈善或公益事業的權力問題了。<br />
<br />
# <a href="http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-209-christopher-chabris-on-collective-intelligence-the-et.html">Christopher Chabris on "Collective intelligence & the ethics of A/B tests"</a>, from <i>Rationally Speaking</i>
<br />
--<span style="color: #20124d;">People who have good social and emotional skills enhance group intelligence more than experts of specific, technical fields.</span><br />
--<span style="color: #20124d;">Women enhance group intelligence, but there may be a selection bias that the women got selected into the sample tend to be more intelligent than average women.</span>
<br />
<br />
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-81425170517223038582018-10-20T11:21:00.002-04:002021-06-25T14:17:49.427-04:00Reading Notes 2018.10.20<a href="http://www.academia.edu/2989491/On_Anthropological_Knowledge_Three_Essays">Claude Lévi-Strauss today, by Dan Sperber</a>
<blockquote>
[p.72] Faithful to the terminology of Saussure, he [Levi-Strauss] tends to refer to symbolic phenomena as "signifiers," and one might assume that the investigation is into an underlying code which pairs these signifiers with their "signified." Yet, if readers begin looking for the signifieds, they soon realize that the underlying code relates signifiers to other signifiers: there are no signifieds. Everything is meaningful, nothing is meant.
<br />
<br />
[p.74] If the question asked were: "Why should a given social group consider itself to stand in a special relationship to, say, eagles?," only unsatisfactory answers could be given: "Because they are mistaken about ancestry," or "because they think they resemble eagles and assume this implies a relationship." Explaining strange behavior by even stranger intellectual errors is no explanation at all.
<br />
<br />
Levi-Strauss points out that the human-animal relationship can be understood in a third, even more systemic way: neither as a set of dyadic relationships between individual items, nor as a dyadic relationship between sets of individual items, but as a second-degree dyadic relationship between two sets of first-degree relationship:
<blockquote>
On the one hand there are animals which differ from each other (in that they belong to distinct species, each of which has its own physical appearance and mode of life), and on the other hand there are men...who also differ from each other (in that they are distributed among different segments of the society, each occupying a particular position in the social structure.). The resemblance presupposed by so-called totemic representations is between these two systems of differences (Levi-Strauss 1963b: 77).
</blockquote>
Seen in this light, the resource to animal species provides a unique system of differences. Species do not overlap, they look different, they live differently, they offer an endless choice of opposed features that can be used to contrast human groups......If, for instance, a tribe were divided into three clans named after the eagle, the bear, and the turtle, this might suggest that we concentrate on the natural element of each of these species, and further contrast the three clans as associated with sky, earth, and water.
</blockquote>
# <a href="http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-209-christopher-chabris-on-collective-intelligence-the-et.html">Christopher Chabris on "Collective intelligence & the ethics of A/B tests"</a>, from <i>Rationally Speaking</i>
<br />
--<span style="color: #20124d;">People who have good social and emotional skills enhance group intelligence more than experts of specific, technical fields.</span><br />
--<span style="color: #20124d;">Women enhance group intelligence, but there may be a selection bias that the women got selected into the sample tend to be more intelligent than average women.</span>
<br />
<br />
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-36011444278530123492018-01-16T09:54:00.002-05:002021-06-25T14:18:09.418-04:00約瑟和他的兄弟們 by 曾慶豹比起其他高遠的神學研究,此書讀來異常親切,讓我重新理解一些人與事。由此回望,我經驗中的那些「好」顯得無比卑微、天真與脆弱,而那些「壞」原來還有千百個理由可以更壞。我該慶幸自己不曾真正經驗過那核心裡的惡嗎?
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.2]</span> <span style="color: #351c75;">有一次在一位老牧師的書架上翻看到一本書《共黨能和宗教和平共存嗎》......令我感到興趣的莫過於是牧師在扉頁註記了一段話:
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">反共不是政治
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">「反共不是政治」絕不是一句簡單的話,他基本上反應了兩種情況:一方面是暗示著基督教最好不要涉入政治,堅持政教分離的原則,另一方面則是把反共產黨、反無神論提高到比政治更高的層次,即它的宗教性或基督徒口中所說的「屬靈戰爭」。</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="color: #351c75;">在我看來,「反共不是政治」可以充分地總結了蔣介石及其代表的黨國基督徒的反共神學是如何滲透基督教,卻又必須小心翼翼地避免引狼入室,避免基督教干預政治,當然,它還給當時的基督教一方面合理化自身不涉及政治的立場之同時,卻又可以使其(不得不)參與一次全面配合黨國的政治意識形態的行動。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.33] 《蔣中正先生手改荒漠甘泉譯稿》實為反共的靈修神學代表作......(《荒漠甘泉》)這本書在軍中最為普及,上下兩冊由國防部總政治作戰部印行,國軍軍官人手一冊,在「使用說明」中還特別標誌:
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">一、本書為先總統 蔣公生前每日所必讀,本部曾先後多次印發軍官,作為革命精神修養日課,茲在印發各級軍官人手一套(上下二冊),希利用工作之餘,每日研讀一篇,並加圈點、眉註,此書內涵深遠,讀完後宜再讀,當另有一番進境,對一個革命工作者而言,可謂終身受用不盡。
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">根據譯者於「例言」中所述:
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">原書各篇總次,在譯本中先後移動甚多,其目的在使課義相近者,彙編於一個月份之內,揭出重點,於每月另加總標題......總統特於書中每篇之首,親撰標題,以明其篇中之重點所在。一月一日之篇,且為 總統親筆所專撰。
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">仔細看蔣修改譯稿之眉批筆跡可以看出...他確實把《荒漠甘泉》當作反攻大陸、收復河山的修養日課,把與共黨的鬥爭視為是有神與無神、正義與邪惡、真理與謊言、上帝與魔鬼之鬥爭;某些冗長的經文徵引也被特別指示刪去,每一個月的主標題都與戰鬥的意識有關,患難、試煉、犧牲等關鍵用語,強調信心的重要性以及經由信心得到勝利的必然性。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.43]
1936年12月發生了著名的西安事變,蔣介石被俘虜,但後來平安脫困。隔年受難節,蔣做了一次證道,內容述說了這一段生死交加的日子,尤其將自身的遭遇比做耶穌受魔鬼試探,並隨時作好犧牲來標榜自己的志節。證道詞中有一段文字說到:
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">惟念余自興學統軍以來,嘗以二語訓部屬:「一、余如有絲毫自私自利,而不為國家與民眾者,則無論何人,皆可視我為國家之罪人,即人人可得而殺我。二、如余之言行稍有不誠不實,虛偽欺妄,而不為革命與主義著想,則任何部下皆可視我為敵人,即無論何時,可以殺余。」此二語,余自信出於精誠,亦即於宗教式之自信心所致,故於毀法蕩紀惡氛之中,仍能撥亂反正,然此亦我耶穌博愛之精誠,與夫 總理寬大仁恕之教訓有以貫之也。
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">據說蔣勤於讀聖經,這段文字可以說明到底蔣介石對基督教信仰的理解以及他的靈性狀態如何。蔣介石結識宋美齡,1927年兩人步入教堂,1930年10月在江長川牧師主持下接受洗禮,沒有提到他上過基本的信仰課程。1936年的受難節證道,卻是自認為自己無絲毫的自私自利,也無不誠實,哪裡像是悔改認罪的基督徒呢?看來,蔣連基本的道裡班恐怕也沒有認真修習過,他憑自己的感受讀經,讀出來的都是國家民族、革命殺敵之類的,一切都是為了服務他的政治理想......
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimSYS-MlTqh1myK44-rJMcgQ3fnJLZds7olDgBu6T1VJ-hyuIbDI7Zs9ZC__qxreCgdRuwHzJKEJWu_tjWVtmBor7hfo4ilIDlfb7vid-czaDk5o350Wcl_9sMVYJNAgYk5nZXQg/s1600/p.49.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="658" data-original-width="1024" height="409" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimSYS-MlTqh1myK44-rJMcgQ3fnJLZds7olDgBu6T1VJ-hyuIbDI7Zs9ZC__qxreCgdRuwHzJKEJWu_tjWVtmBor7hfo4ilIDlfb7vid-czaDk5o350Wcl_9sMVYJNAgYk5nZXQg/s640/p.49.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.287] 張靜愚的角色最為特別,因為他同時也是中原大學的董事(中原創立晚於東海),又是護教反共的帶頭人...事實上他並不具備任何基督教教派或組織相關的身份,從來他就是以一位忠誠的黨員及官員的身份出現在歷史舞台上的,1965年之後,張靜愚更是在護教反共的立場上與黃彰輝等人形成對立的關係,因此張靜愚同時具有中原董事的身份又被安排在東海大學的董事會名單之中,其中的政治意義也就格外地顯著。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">1967年的東海大學董事會結構,長老教會的代表基本上已全面地撤退,宋泉盛是接替黃彰輝的,他也做到1970年,這一年長老教會退出了普世教協。1970年後,黨國基督徒已全面掌握了東海的董事會......事實上,東海大學成立的真正推手是黃彰輝、黃武東、彌迪理,他們出力極多,所以長老教會可謂居功厥偉。絕大部分具有長老教會背景的代表都止步於1965年,黃武東最早離開,高天成1965年逝世,黃彰輝和林宗義也只做到1965年。黃彰輝、黃武東和張靜愚在東海大學開始籌備之初就已名列於委員會之中,黃彰輝和張靜愚在董事會裡共事長達十二年之九,這兩個人正是護教反共時期站在對立面頭號人物,周聯華於1958年在張靜愚任董事長時才加入。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">...(東海與中原)兩校均標榜為「基督教大學」,但從東海的董事會名單結構可以看到「黨國基督徒」與「自由派基督徒」的政治(護教反共)分野,但在中原大學的情況則是清一色的「黨國基督徒」,再加上幾位天真的外國傳教士。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.338] 《北部台灣基督長老教會「新人運動」之研究》這本碩士論文,對於理解陳溪圳有非常高的價值。廖安惠在論文中透露了北部長老教會於1932年至1939年的日據時代「新舊兩派」權力鬥爭的內在本質,其中,最為關鍵的即是「新派」的代表人物中尤以陳溪圳為核心,還包括陳芳本、鄭蒼國、蕭樂善、郭和烈、吳清鎰等。這幾位從日本留學回台的青年傳道師,表面上是為了改造體制,目的是為了要從陳清義等當權派或稱「舊派」之手中奪得教會的領導權,聚結並推動「新人運動」,以告密方式借助了日本政府之力,指控舊派仇日,並成功地奪取了實質的權力,這種權力結構一直延續到戰後。
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">根據資料的顯示以及相關人士的回憶,主要是發生了一件相當令人注目的「神學生聯名退學事件」。「舊派」人物遭到密告,結果被日本當局拘捕,「新人派」人士卻都倖免於難。廖惠安的論文附有一篇當事人張慶羲的訪問紀錄,透露出這些新派人士的投機和兩面性格...這些人在戰時,實為親日派,利用美日的矛盾,趕走外國教士,這些「新人運動」分子也被形容作「愛國派」,暗指為皇民化運動的支持者。張慶羲甚至說:
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #351c75;">這些人與戰後捧國民黨的人都是同一批,他們是賣教會、害別人,自己得利益的人。這批人,日本統治時喊日本萬歲,中國統治時喊中國萬歲。
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">可見周聯華、黃武東對陳溪圳的評價,絕非空穴來風。(註釋:第一階段涉及到皇民化的問題,黃武東和周聯華的回憶都曾公開點名批評陳溪圳。據說,1945年太平洋戰爭結束,也同樣是這班人,向重慶的國民政府發「表忠文」,以示效忠。)
</span></blockquote>
另外,本書第四章〈1965:從合一到分裂〉專門寫黨國機器如何整肅、分化長老教會,可能是最有意思的一章。
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-5596449788286100762017-10-21T20:30:00.001-04:002021-06-25T14:18:26.377-04:00Reading Notes 2017.10.21<a href="https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-us-college-went-from-pitiful-to-powerful"># An unlikely triumph by David Labaree.</a>
<br />
美國許多 college 設在偏僻小鎮,因為原本就是為了炒新開發區地皮而設。大學部學費是主要收入來源,所以課程不能太難,要讓學生開心,與社區民眾及校友維繫感情,經營球隊是方法之一, populism。
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/778-from-blacklivesmatter-to-black-liberation"># From BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor</a>
<br />
很久沒讀這種論述性質的東西了。我關心的問題:階級與種族兩線上的運動為何分裂,又如何可能聯合,作者也關心,但只是輕描淡寫地穿插提及。一來,本書的主題固不在此吧,二來,作者始終停留在論述層次,不在意將論述轉譯成經驗命題 (例如,哪些白人工人有強烈的種族主義傾向?為甚麼?),也不試圖從經驗分析中尋求支持。<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>
作者舉了些數據說明美國低階白人也受到不少壓迫,且受苦的白人在數量上更多,這些白人與黑人應該有團結的基礎。但現實結果並非如此。於是作者提問:If it isn't in the interest of ordinary whites to be racist, why do they accept racist ideas? 這種古典提問自然就引來古典回答:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.212] There are two primary reasons: competition and the prevalence of ruling-class ideology.
</span></blockquote>
然後...就沒有然後了。除了一些一般性的宣稱與修辭之外,就像大多數論述作品那樣,作者沒有深入討論真實世界的競爭與意識型態在黑白工人之間的運作機制。
<br />
<br />
其他:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.4] The success of a relative few African Americans is upheld as a vindication of the United States' colorblind ethos and a testament to the transcendence of its racist past. Where there is bad treatment on the basis of race, it is viewed as the product of lapsed personal behavior and morality, but it is "no longer endemic, or sanctioned by law and custom," as President Obama suggested in a speech commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #351c75;">This is precisely why the spectacle of unchecked police brutality and murder has morphed into a political crisis. After all, the United States does not passively contend that it is a colorblind society; it actively promotes its supposed colorblindness as an example of its democratic traditions and its authority to police the globe. The federal government and politicians in both parties have used this as an excuse to cut social programs and other aspects of the public sector, in denial of the central way that discrimination harms Black life in the United States. In other words, if a central demand of the civil rights movement in the 1960s was federal intervention to act against discrimination and act affirmatively to improve the quality of life for African Americans, promoting the United States as colorblind or postracial has done the opposite as it is used to justify dismantling the state's capacity to challenge.
</span></blockquote>
雙重標準固是普遍現象,但我猜測美國 (人) 的雙重標準性格特別強烈。我不覺得運動有絲毫動搖這一點。
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">[p.210] "Whiteness" is therefore not necessarily embodied in white people; it can apply to anyone - Black, Latino, Asian, and, yes, white people. ...when "acting white" is invoked to explain the actions of reactionary nonwhite political actors, like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, it is being used to transpose class and race, further distorting the existence of class difference. In this way, "whiteness" is an adaptation of the American left to the myth that the United States is a classless society. Nonwhite people in positions of power are accused of "performing whiteness" instead of exercising their class power...
</span></blockquote>
相對於運動中出現的本質主義傾向 ("白人全都是天然的種族主義者"),這實在太輕描淡寫了。
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-48065352829065715232017-05-31T21:18:00.002-04:002021-06-25T14:18:42.854-04:00Reading Notes 2017.05.31<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=contractarianism-contemporary" target="_blank">Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract, by D'Agostino, Gaus, and Thrasher (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</a><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"> 1. 古典的社會契約論重視 consent-obligation。當代契約論重視 the problem of justification: what social arrangements we can all accept as “free persons who have no authority over one another” (Rawls 1958, 33).</span><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"> 2. Contractarian (Hobbesian/reductionist/why be moral) 與 Contratualist (Kantian/non-reductionist/what sorts of moral or political principles meet certain basic moral demands) 兩類理論。</span><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"> 3. 如果 agents 的異質性太高,可能出現 indeterminacy/equilibrium selection 問題。</span><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"> 4. Hobbes 以野蠻狀態對照社會契約。當代理論家的另一種論法是社會契約 vs 現狀,或將契約分為兩階段,constitutional 與 post-constitutional。</span><br />
<span style="color: #20124d;"> 5. 共識之形成機制: bargaining; aggregation; EGT equilibrium.</span><br />
---順帶一提,如<a href="https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=bc7XAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA308&ots=2BjSSoeFtp&dq=Kant%27s%20categorical%20imperative%20greatly%20clarifies%20the%20paradox%20at%20the%20heart%20of%20social%20dilemmas&hl=zh-TW&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=true" target="_blank">這段分析</a>指出,Kant's categorical imperative 只是 symmetric game 的結果,難擴展至 asymmetric 情況。包括 Rawls 在內的一些社會契約論者似也有相同問題。<br />
---從社會契約論的現實功能或用途反觀,是否能找出一些新方向?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/4056" target="_blank">陳博志:前瞻4200億軌道建設一定要緩下來!</a><br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-25826472714365618432017-05-14T17:04:00.002-04:002021-06-25T14:19:02.042-04:00Reading Notes 2017.05.14---<a href="http://cnpolitics.org/2017/04/gramsci/">逝世八十年后,葛兰西如何帮我们理解当代政治 by 张跃然 骆斯航</a>
<br />
此文前半段似乎混淆了政府與國家。批判Trump的自由派拒絕這個政府,但他們的批判表明他們強烈認同美國且積極維護它。
<br />
<br />
---意外讀到一篇特別的書評:<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/deve.12108/full" target="_blank">“Original Sin”? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore by Kumar Ramakrishna, Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2015, vii + 167 pp. by Michael D. Barr</a>
<br />
不論如何宣告意識型態終結,這些東西還是離我們這麼近。
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-67491828664042379792017-04-22T23:25:00.002-04:002021-06-25T14:19:17.043-04:00Comments on Postone's Time, Labor, and Social DominationDear A,<br />
<br />
Thanks for introducing me <a href="http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AD3DB7D2575DF41FE7F3BF216653F3C7">the book by Moishe Postone</a>. I had read the third part of the book, Toward a reconstruction of the Marxian critique: capital. Since I am more interested in his own understandings and implications of his own analyses, I skip the first two parts. Overall it is a good book. But I can’t say that I love it. Most arguments of Postone are familiar to me in one way or the other, and I have been skeptical about them. I do like his argument for the possibility against actuality. But unfortunately he does not clarify the conditions or obstacles for it very much. Below I will outline his three major arguments, and then spell out my critiques or thoughts related to them.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<i>1. The proletarian is not a revolutionary force, since it is intrinsically determined by and embedded in the capital.</i><br />
<br />
I do agree with Postone on this in principal. But contrary to Postone’s understanding, I believe that it is not a problem for the traditional Marxism. Because the similar argument, and only stronger and fiercer, was proposed long ago by Lenin in his What is to be Done.<br />
<br />
Lenin’s critique against "bowing to the worker’s spontaneity", and the economism, is based on exactly the same understanding of the worker’s role in capitalism as Postone’s. Lenin’s critique and the following strategy, the vanguard revolutionary party, had been the essential element or even the dogma in traditional Marxism. They were also deeply integrated into various institutions of the real-existed socialism. Whatever the version of traditional Marxism Postone has in mind, it’s weird that he should omit the trademark of Leninism and raises it as something new.<br />
<br />
Lenin’s critique originated from the struggle against the revisionism which was popular among socialist parties in the western European countries in his time and continues so after WWII. Postone’s argument seems has the same origin, against what he called traditional Marxism.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Postone definitely cannot be criticizing Leninism or the real-exited socialism, since he and Lenin’s critique employ the same argument here. But Postone may be implicitly criticizing Lenin’s vanguard revolutionary strategy, because in Postone, the critique of the major role of the proletarian leads to the sympathy to the new social movements (environmental, gender, and so on), and the alternative subject, the people. If we understand Postone under this context, the question then becomes: can his proposal do any better than Lenin in challenging economism and moving toward socialism? Unfortunately, we are not able to tell the answer since he does not analyze these concepts and related issues any further.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>2. Capital has intrinsic tendency of an automatic/ever-growing productivity, which is an alienated force and runs away from people’s control.</i><br />
<br />
Let's skip the cliché of alienation. The idea that capital intrinsically contain an automatic/ever-growing productivity is a phenomenon I would call “macro/aggregation illusion”. Philosophically it reminds me Hegel’s thought of the objective, absolute, self-moving spirit. In economics it is similar with theories hold by some Marxian authors like John Weeks, or some simplified macroeconomic models in which the growth of the aggregate productivity, or TFP, is exogenous.<br />
<br />
This simplified assumption may be useful in few cases, but can be pretty harmful in many other cases. There is nothing really automatic/ever-growing/alienated in the thing called productivity growth. It’s a phenomenon at the aggregate level resulting from the competition between individual capitals, the struggles between managers and workers within firms, and the complex interactions between institutions and economic agents, etc. There will be no growth of productivity without these relations (SSA approach may call these relations as institutions). And if any of these relations changes significantly in some ways, capitalism will also experience significant changes and leads to different phenomena and patterns. This is the real ground for study and debate, and has crucial implications for political and economic strategies. Unfortunately Postone fails to locate himself on this real ground.<br />
<br />
It’s true that Marx abstracts from many of these elements at the first part of Capital vol. 1, and sometimes he does play with Hegelian terms too much. But that doesn’t mean that everything he wrote after that can be reduced to nothing but the intrinsic nature of capital. When Marx claims that capital is the aggregate of whole sets of social relations, I believe he means that the aggregate is the result or the end of our analysis of the sets of social relations, rather than the starting point (This is an methodological argument against Hegel).<br />
<br />
Without certain understandings of the institutional foundations, Postone can only repeat those very abstract descriptions, lumps everything into the intrinsic nature of capital, and falls into the "trap" of the discourse of alienation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>3. The main contradiction identified by Marx is the contradiction between the potentiality (possibility) and the actuality. In this way, Marx’s critique of capital is not a positive critique.</i><br />
<br />
This is probably my favorite part of this book. This may lead to a normative critique, something similar to the Pareto improvement, or some kind of social welfare expansion in welfare economic analysis.<br />
<br />
However, two key questions are: 1. What's your criteria of welfare improvement, or if you like, of the potentiality, such as, what kinds of improvement is desirable and why and by how much. 2. what are the concrete conditions to realize the potentiality, to make it a realistic potentiality rather than just a fantasy?<br />
<br />
In both respects, Postone’s concepts of welfare and its improvement are pretty unclear. This kind of “openness” is equivalent to vagueness for me. This is especially unfortunate because we have had lots of experiences of the socialist struggles and the bitter history of real-existed socialism. And these experiences have had moved beyond Marx’s imagination in various ways. An analysis based on the experiences of these practices, and linked back to Marx’s ideas, may be more constructive.
<br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-28402123208297014352016-11-12T09:56:00.001-05:002016-11-18T17:35:51.979-05:00他們為何震驚?憤怒些甚麼?這次美國總統大選,有很多值得思索的現象。其中最引起我困惑的,就是在川普勝選後,人們表現出來的震驚,以及隨後群起抗議的內容。<br />
<br />
這樣說可能有點奇怪,因為眾所周知,川普這號人物之所以引人爭議,就是因為他的種族主義,性別歧視與排外等突破底線的言行,人們抗議的也是針對這些,有甚麼好奇怪的呢?<br />
<br />
我困惑的是,川普的這些爭議言行,似乎並不是克林頓敗選/川普勝選的關鍵原因。<br />
<a name='more'></a><b><br /></b>
<b>民主黨基本盤:執政聯盟與多元文化戰略</b><br />
<br />
要理解民主黨為什麼敗選,我試著用比較直觀的方法,先弄清楚本次選舉中,民主黨的基本面或基本盤為何,然後分析雙方在此給定條件下,進行短期攻防的利弊得失,找出造成眼前結果的關鍵變數。<br />
<br />
先來看一下民主黨的基本盤。遠的不說,只談比爾克林頓執政時開始的民主黨路線。此一路線,不管給它貼上甚麼標籤,比如第三條路,中間偏左,中間偏右,新自由主義,等等,真正重要的是它與共和黨的相對關係。為了跟上雷根掀起的新自由主義旋風,<a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=3606" target="_blank">比爾克林頓的所作所為就是圓滑版的新自由主義</a>,比如開放金融管制,給金融機構 bailout,或推動自由貿易協定,總之是把雷根與老布希也想做,但沒做到或還沒動手的那些也給做了。這樣玩而且玩得成功的結果,就是民主黨巴上了新經濟的精英們。<br />
<br />
從比爾克林頓開始,民主黨的執政聯盟中便有三大群體,一是舊經濟藍領,二是少數族群,三是新經濟白領。這三大群體之中,最優先的當然是新經濟白領,尤其是資訊科技與華爾街的金融創新,他們代表未來,代表後工業時代的知識經濟動力,是超越傳統左右之別的「創意階級」,據說可以撐起新的經濟與社會模式。<br />
<br />
與此配套,民主黨還發展了多元文化政治,與轉型後的福利經濟,作為這幾股力量之間很重要的黏合劑。少數族群是對抗傳統保守派選民的重要力量,多元文化政治與福利經濟一方面是順應其他兩個群體日益加強的權利訴求,另一方面也是民主黨新文化領導權的一個組成部分,在調節不同群體的利益衝突與福利分配方面發揮作用。同時,多元文化論也是新經濟白領中意的,不僅看來開明酷炫,他們之中很多人本身也是移民或移民後代。<br />
<br />
簡言之,在舊經濟於雷根與老布希時期遭受打擊,民主黨一路吃鱉之後,民主黨的新戰略是積極擁抱新經濟白領,拉著舊經濟勞工(當然真實情況更像是:諒你也不敢跑),並以多元文化政治收編人數逐漸增加,政治意識逐漸抬頭的少數族群。超越左右的新經濟,多元文化政治,與新福利體系,就成了定義 1990 年代以來美式自由派的關鍵元素。 <br />
<br />
民主黨的這種轉型從政治地理上也看得很明顯。到吉米卡特勝選的 1976 年為止,美國中南部的幾個大州都還是投民主黨的,加州與西部各州投共和黨。到了比爾克林頓競選的 1992 與 1996 年,中西部投共和黨,東西部都會區投民主黨的分佈就開始成形了。當時中西部的傳統工業地帶也還支持民主黨。
<br />
<br />
以下的選舉地圖都來自 wikipedia:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976" target="_blank">US presidential election, 1976</a><br />
<span id="goog_1653166811"></span><span id="goog_1653166812"></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgOL3k9ySd3YYwLwXRCv8rBgNQBnAuhWbRoJKkp3EhHlnMMPQWk6OfnODCTw7adu0baWYMfIcwy6AuWwRfASBroU9Eo9Bh-9xm_UEe7WAWZTsaKXTuw32X00zo69vJlpzadcgAQw/s1600/524px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgOL3k9ySd3YYwLwXRCv8rBgNQBnAuhWbRoJKkp3EhHlnMMPQWk6OfnODCTw7adu0baWYMfIcwy6AuWwRfASBroU9Eo9Bh-9xm_UEe7WAWZTsaKXTuw32X00zo69vJlpzadcgAQw/s320/524px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Carter/Mondale, Red denotes those won by Ford/Dole. Ronald Reagan received an electoral vote from a "faithless elector" in Washington. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992" target="_blank">US presidential election, 1992</a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtE1LtQisMpPetUsys5BXR7154KDgt_z9k8Op0HpF0uRBpLmhHOquHO1I9wZKHKDCZU_Ghy-_liQgq-okbm9Yhydk2s9vFcLmL_8JpnZtDdZ3KTCH-v6NqjHhyphenhyphenvsxjbYqdu-_eA/s1600/524px-ElectoralCollege1992.svg.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtE1LtQisMpPetUsys5BXR7154KDgt_z9k8Op0HpF0uRBpLmhHOquHO1I9wZKHKDCZU_Ghy-_liQgq-okbm9Yhydk2s9vFcLmL_8JpnZtDdZ3KTCH-v6NqjHhyphenhyphenvsxjbYqdu-_eA/s320/524px-ElectoralCollege1992.svg.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Quayle (18), Blue denotes those won by Clinton/Gore (32+D.C.). Numbers indicate electoral votes allotted to the winner of each state.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996" target="_blank">US presidential election, 1996</a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioryb4RYd5OtUAHDTvA9kQY_hPYbMEqzOjy2ozDL7uGzA3TKrsPoOSq6CEzIcpqtorTwaT6vFZZS3fnSoCKblphF74RgFqfEnI9nl5rSTI-ktUR-Sjq-cV-mfsfH561akghasSLg/s1600/524px-ElectoralCollege1996.svg.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioryb4RYd5OtUAHDTvA9kQY_hPYbMEqzOjy2ozDL7uGzA3TKrsPoOSq6CEzIcpqtorTwaT6vFZZS3fnSoCKblphF74RgFqfEnI9nl5rSTI-ktUR-Sjq-cV-mfsfH561akghasSLg/s320/524px-ElectoralCollege1996.svg.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Dole/Kemp (19), Blue denotes those won by Clinton/Gore (31+D.C.). Numbers indicate electoral votes allotted to the winner of each state.</span><br />
<br />
<b>民主黨輸在哪裡?</b><br />
<br />
以上算是民主黨執政聯盟的前史與基本盤。那麼,這次選舉的關鍵變化是甚麼呢?
<br />
<br />
首先,我想提一個經常被忽略,但可能值得重視的基本事實:鐘擺效應。在美國的兩黨政治歷史中,連任兩屆總統之後,還由同一黨的候選人繼續入主白宮,這種例子在美國本就罕見。共和黨相對還有較多這種例子,民主黨則是除了羅斯福之外,自 1856 年之後即無此例。從這個角度來說,民主黨的落敗可能不算太意外。更何況,克林頓還贏了近半數選票,可說是表現中上了。這種鐘擺現象當然不僅僅是選民換人做做看的考量使然。現實世界中很少有皆大歡喜的政策,一個執政團隊不論再怎麼優秀,連續幾年執政下來總會累積不少矛盾,讓民眾覺得需要改弦更張。<br />
<br />
這種鐘擺效應當然不代表川普必然會贏,只是說,在民主黨總統八年任期屆滿之際,民心思變,挑戰者本就贏面大些。至於這種贏面能否落實,則要看雙方的策略運用,是否能夠在大盤基本底定的情況下,催動那些關鍵的搖擺群體。<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcLe6FpWgDXKwAduX-L1Ex5rtkdmrBMro5K42sUAkfhe4b8eO6gIsReKpYkh7Lg0uYWrp7aS-opaF3lGcczDW9WlXK2YpOLu2I9Uy4bxezJApQbh_F0MUiXUOOdFwc-Ibm4QuYEQ/s1600/clinton.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcLe6FpWgDXKwAduX-L1Ex5rtkdmrBMro5K42sUAkfhe4b8eO6gIsReKpYkh7Lg0uYWrp7aS-opaF3lGcczDW9WlXK2YpOLu2I9Uy4bxezJApQbh_F0MUiXUOOdFwc-Ibm4QuYEQ/s320/clinton.JPG" width="243" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">選前收到的UAW工會刊物</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
在此前提下,整體而言,克林頓的表現似乎沒有太大意外。從民主黨的執政聯盟構造來說,根據<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html" target="_blank">出口民調</a>,這次少數族裔的選票大多數仍歸民主黨,只是因為克林頓本人沒有歐巴馬那樣的號召力,所以比例上比 2012 年稍減,但整體變化不大。(有部分華裔轉投共和黨,但華裔在投票總數中不算多。)真正可以檢討的問題應該是,她無法平衡民主黨執政聯盟中兩股力量的訴求:新經濟白領精英與舊經濟藍領勞工。
<br />
<br />
這兩者的訴求本就不同,但不是直接的對立關係,在經濟條件尚好時,可以透過福利政策調節彼此的利益,但在金融危機深化,與全球化帶來的舊經濟產業蕭條之後,新經濟白領所造成的「負外部性」越來越嚴重,舊經濟勞工的不滿會持續累積。歐巴馬剛上場時,一方面有少數族群選票加分,新人新政也讓選民期待他能整治一下華爾街,重振福利體系。只是八年過去,我們都知道發生了甚麼事。克林頓在這些方面比歐巴馬更缺乏吸引力。她所代表的民主黨建制派,一再顯示她義無反顧擁抱新經濟白領,拋棄或冷處理舊經濟勞工的態度。
<br />
<br />
與克林頓相較,川普並不積極爭取新經濟白領,也完全跟少數族裔對著幹。他很清楚那些不是他動得了的。在民主黨的執政聯盟中,他能挖的只有舊經濟勞,主要的工具就是貿易保護政策訴求。成果部分展現在大家印象中的「低收入低教育非都會區白人投川普」(參考<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html" target="_blank">出口民調</a>的 income 與 education by race)。從出口民調看來,民主黨基本盤的其他部分,相較於2012年的歐巴馬,並沒有流失太多。最大的差異就是在低收入者,以及教育程度較低的白人。(出口民調沒有 income by race,所以無法肯定是否是低收入白人,但鑒於教育程度與收入的高相關性,應該可以說教育程度低的白人也是低收入者居多。)<br />
<br />
至於他的那些種族主義言行,對他要挖角的民主黨鐵鏽區白人勞工來說可能只是無關痛癢,但卻可能有吸引與激勵共和黨保守群眾的作用,因為<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/world/americas/brexit-donald-trump-whites.html" target="_blank">這些人就是長期被多元文化政治壓制或忽略的對象</a>,與多元文化政治相連的福利體制,也是他們所厭惡的。至於他的減稅,反氣候變遷論等等,都是傳統的共和黨訴求,算是維持共和黨基本盤,並非克林頓落敗的原因。<br />
<br />
有些評論認為,克林頓之所以無法爭取鐵鏽區勞工的支持,並不是因為她的新自由主義,而是因為草根白人固有的種族主義與性別歧視傾向,使得他們不欣賞克林頓。這似乎是把鐵鏽區勞工與共和黨傳統選民混淆了。鐵鏽區勞工是民主黨的傳統支持者,民主黨以前的執政聯盟能夠運作成功,就表明這些勞工並非種族主義者。<br />
<br />
反過來說,共和黨的傳統選民也難以一概而論地當成種族主義者。有些確實是與黑人或其他新移民有長期矛盾的,有些則只是偏傳統價值的保守主義。很多投川普的人並不是「因為」他的種族主義與排外,而是「雖然」他有種族主義與排外問題,為了XX所以才投他。<br />
<br />
<b>他們為什麼震驚?憤怒些甚麼?</b><br />
<br />
基於上述分析,再回來看文章開頭提到的困惑:為什麼大家對川普勝選/克林頓敗選,感覺這麼震驚呢?我觀察原因有二。
<br />
<br />
一是選前媒體輿論與民調的偏誤。儘管主流媒體對雙方的負面新聞都有揭露,但整體主流輿論差不多一面倒地抨擊川普,就連親共和黨的也有許多人表態抨擊川普。這其中有記者與社會輿論代表本人的意識形態偏向:知識菁英看不起川普,這不是甚麼秘密。也有媒體產業的利益趨動:因為川普的非典型,媒體在這次選舉中可是賺了一票,它們有充分的動機把川普醜惡的一面與雙方的衝突放大特寫,刺激收視率。媒體在選前不斷塑造克林頓會勝選的預期,同時又隨著選情發展將雙方的差異極端對立起來,差不多是文明與野蠻對抗。這正是多元文化論作為主流文化霸權地位的表現。當這一切最後撞上醜陋的現實之後,挫折感與衝擊是可以想像的。(值得一提的是,並非所有的民調與預測都錯喔,比如<a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-20161108-story.html" target="_blank">這個</a>跟<a href="https://theinitium.com/article/20161109-dailynews-Allan-Lichtman/" target="_blank">這個</a>。)<br />
<br />
第二,如前所述,多元文化政治對民主黨建制派而言是文化領導權,是統戰工具,但對很多群眾而言則是重要的甚至是僅有的武器了。美國是個不談階級的社會,各種激進語言都被主流邊緣化與壓抑,唯有多元文化政治是 1990 年代以來的,幾乎是唯一被容許甚至鼓勵的進步話語,差不多也是各種稍有進步傾向力量的最大公約數了。這種話語當然不全是虛假的,否則它就不會有任何作用。它確實有作用,在各種文化權利與福利分配政策上起作用,許多人也切身地以此標定自己的政治參與行動。它已經是這個社會運行的制度之一了,不只是政治正確嘴皮子。(另一個主流能見的進步話語還有氣候變遷,不過很難激起行動,因為對美國一般人沒有太多實際利益甚至有麻煩,而北極熊跟和南島居民又沒有投票權。)而川普的言行似乎要正面挑戰,推翻這一套論述與制度。<br />
<br />
看看主流媒體的報導就知道,川普對多元文化論述的衝擊是此次美國選舉的最大熱點,因為多元文化論不僅僅是學院白左的政治正確,也不是只關係到少數族群權利的政策,還是民主黨的執政聯盟賴以維繫的文化領導權戰略。若是只有學院左派和少數族群關心的較具體也較激進的議題,如 black lives matter 運動,川普再怎麼攻擊,大概也不會激起主流輿論如此巨大的反彈。換個角度說,如果今天共和黨推出的是個持同樣保守政見,但口不出穢言的候選人,類似當年的雷根,主流輿論還會有這麼大的反彈嗎?<br />
<br />
川普用貿易保護訴求針對鐵鏽區拔樁,對自由派來說似乎還是小事(他們中的一些人可能認為那些人是 white trash 是包袱吧),砍自由派的意識型態旗幟,挑戰文化霸權,才是大事。也就是說,基本的政治結構可能(還)沒有太大變化,但政治論述有了變化,至於此一變化會不會深化至引發其他甚麼改變,仍有待觀察。<br />
<br />
<b>多元文化政治與階級論述的矛盾</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
值得注意的是,從民主黨支持者事後的震驚中,可以看出多元文化論如何忽略或掩蓋了階級問題。多元文化論忽視或掩蓋階級矛盾,在左翼理論界應該不是甚麼新觀點(比如<a href="http://www.sachina.edu.cn/Htmldata/article/2006/07/1079.html" target="_blank">這篇</a>)。在這種認識架構下,民主黨執政支柱之一,非白人族群,以身分文化認同及相關的權利與福利分配的方式受到重視,階級身份則被抹去(很大量的非白人族群都是工人,儘管未必是美國傳統工會組織中的工人),並且與其他的白人工人在文化認同與社福教育政策方面切割開來,算是某種分而治之。麻煩的是,這樣切劃的結果,傳統白人工人就被劃出了團結圈,失去了文化發言權。於是,大致仍能守住少數族群陣地的克林頓,卻無法獲得低收入白人的支持,反而讓川普這口無遮攔的富豪,藉由貿易保護政策訴求(對鐵鏽區勞工)拔樁成功。
<br />
<br />
這其實也可以從 Bernie Sanders 與 Hillary Clinton 在初選時的對抗看出端倪。現在很多評論回顧指出,與 Clinton 相反,Sanders 肯定能夠爭取到舊經濟藍領的支持,但當時 Sanders 被一些自由派批評的恰好就是,他無法爭取到黑人與拉丁裔乃至女性群眾的支持。為什麼?因為 Sanders 是個羅斯福新政式的老左派,固守傳統的階級架構,講任何問題總會拉回新自由主義,階級壓迫,所得不均之類的老調。這種講法與自由派主流的多元文化論不協調,於是就出局了(更何況還得罪了絕不能得罪的新經濟白領)。此種論調的前提是,少數族裔喜歡 Clinton 的多元文化政治,更勝於 Sanders 的階級政治。實際是否真是如此,自然可以存疑,但這種論調的流行,已清楚說明了多元文化論作為民主黨文化霸權論述的地位,與它和階級論之間的矛盾關係。
<br />
<br />
我非常同情從多元文化論出發的那些說法,川普上台確實可能大開倒車,危及許多非白人的權利與安全,包括像我這樣的外籍學生。保衛多元文化政治的積極成果是重要的。但光從敗選的實際原因來說,最關鍵的還是舊經濟藍領的問題。川普對多元文化論的攻擊並不是克林頓敗選的重要原因,其實更像是眾人含淚投票,讓克林頓沒有輸得更多的原因。只是從多元文化論與階級論的矛盾關係來看,多元文化論很可能就是需要解決的問題的一部分。
<br />
<br />
<b>其他觀察</b><br />
<br />
有一種說法是:川普民粹上台,可能走向法西斯。如果把法西斯定義為國家主義的統制經濟政策,而不只是歧視,那麼川普肯定不是法西斯。這傢伙看來是要去管制化,減稅,搞 trickle down 的。<br />
<br />
至於種族歧視與性別歧視,他的部分支持者<a href="http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4NzE0NjY3NA==&mid=2649997534&idx=1&sn=c514a78747e02cc65f66d8bb84c67cab&chksm=883a8903bf4d0015baadad75d69360ca886fc1683474050f5d8e8dc0792c5f54c62101e5c6e6&mpshare=1&scene=2&srcid=1110DB3UscdRkpG3R6QgERMt&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#wechat_redirect" target="_blank">已經開始實踐了</a>。當然這種人在美國一直都有,只是現在有川普撐腰,更加明目張膽。至於川普要不要繼續搧風點火,就看川普骨子裡的野心有多大了。儘管多元文化論述是統戰工具,沒有真正挑戰美國白人社會根深蒂固的種族壓迫與階級構造(真要解決的話會動搖國本吧……),但在文化權利與福利安排方面,多元文化論畢竟已是一套牽連甚廣的制度。既然已經選上,我覺得川普如果沒太大野心的話,就會像小布希,平常嘴巴放乾淨一點,避免徒增施政成本,等抗議群眾散去,再任命保守派大法官,或默默地對相關政策開刀就行了。但如果川普真有很大野心,而且他實際上比他在選舉期間的樣子更聰明的話,要砍掉多元文化的權利論述,開始重塑新時代的文化領導權,不是完全做不到,只是以多元文化論現在的勢力,非有一番惡戰不行。<br />
<br />
部分舊經濟勞工轉投共和黨,我覺得目前還很難判斷其前景。如果繼續有更多勞工也投身共和黨,真的讓民主黨的執政支柱倒掉一根,才會是較大的變化。不過,在共和黨繼續減稅,擁抱舊經濟金主的前提下,這還有待觀察。<br />
<br />
要吸引更多勞工,在共和黨這邊最重要也最明顯的政策變化,看來是貿易保護政策。但這我也懷疑川普能推到甚麼程度,除非他能廢掉整個 WTO,不然只是把 TPP 停掉,多發起一些貿易爭端,影響不大的。媒體愛把一切保護政策冠上閉關鎖國的帽子,稍有動靜就恐嚇說全球化要逆轉了,保護主義要捲土重來,實在是過分誇大了。(這篇主要講的是民主黨的政治,共和黨方面還有經濟的議題,這裡就不多說了。)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
排外築牆這點我不是很擔心,因為很多資本家需要外籍移工啊,所以更可能發生的情況是,繼續或明或暗地讓移工進來,然後放任雇主用更惡劣的辦法壓榨移工。當然,光是把目前的無證移工抓走(據<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/" target="_blank">估計有 1100 萬人</a>),就會造成很大規模的人道慘劇了,也會讓有證移工的談判能力大幅下降。再加上對少數族裔權利與福利的限縮,非白人的底層工人的處境應該會繼續惡化。<br />
<br />
有不少評論嘲諷自由派精英,尤其是所謂「白左」,不懂群眾心理與真正的苦處,只會搬弄多元文化的政治正確修辭,最終慘敗只是剛好。對這種意見,最直接的反向意見就是繼續談普世價值的重要性,社會要進步要推動人心向善,等等。這一正一反的意見都建立在精英與群眾二分的前提上,本身就很成問題,因為群眾與精英各自都不是鐵板一塊,尤其以這裡的議題來說,除了票投川普的群眾之外,反川普的群眾也不少。根據出口民調,低收入者其實過半是投給克林頓的,這包括了不同種族的群眾。即便我們知道低收入者中很多白人投給川普,但更多的低收入非白人是反川普的,他們就不算是工人了嗎?他們就不是群眾了嗎?(即便在沒上大學的白人群眾中,也有近三成是反川普的。)<br />
<br />
如前所述,多元文化論述絕不只是政治正確的嘴皮子或宏大理想,對學院中人可能是進步的價值理想,對民主黨政治人物來說是維繫執政聯盟的文化領導權,對底層群眾,尤其是非白人群眾來說,可能是他們僅有的權利論述武器了。這武器用處有限,還有些副作用,但除此之外,在美國目前的主流政治框架內,他們真是沒甚麼論述資源。 <br />
<br />
有些不在美國的華人(中港台等地)似乎不太買多元文化論的帳,我覺得原因不難理解。(在美華人的反應,看來主要受其政經利益影響,不同族裔之間會有利益衝突,沒甚麼意外之處,不討論。)不是甚麼習慣於威權強人崇拜或急於自我洗白,而是在華人的政治經驗中,傳統上根本沒有與其他種族打交道的需要。華人是以漢族為主體建立民族國家的,且漢族人數佔絕對多數,少數民族再怎麼反也不成氣候(有沒有投票權都一樣),因此也不需要特地發展一套論述去處理。曾經提出過的政治論述,多半只是跟異族上層精英的統戰,也絕不是甚麼平等人權,照樣是差序格局下的納貢制。少數民族基層群眾自己的聲音,就更別提了。於是最後只剩下少數接觸西方思想的知識分子會同情多元文化論,然後被某些網民譏為學院「黃左」。換句話說,也不是華人與白人有甚麼根本不同,只是長期無此需要。
<br />
<br />
但這是華人基於自身的政治與歷史形成的思維慣性,不是美國的社會真實。美國有其特殊的歷史與社會構造,同一個字眼,在這裡的意義與政治效果都可能不同。多元文化論能夠流行至今,也確實有很多人認為多元文化政治對他們而言至關重要,數量與程度遠遠不是學院白左、精英理想、政治正確等等說法可以解釋的。不管喜不喜歡多元文化政治,理性的研究者應該首先把它當成一個客觀存在的社會現象,去思考其之所以成立的箇中緣由。
<br />
<br />
另外,<a href="https://quasi-quasi.com/2016/11/10/secretworlduselections/" target="_blank">wikileak 披露的克林頓電郵內容</a>,美國媒體也有報,但對自由派選民來說差不多是耳邊風吧。儘管左派會批判克林頓操作地緣政治軍事,雙手血跡斑斑,不過很現實的是,美國自由派的主流群眾(偶而也會讀讀 Chomsky 喔)超級愛國的,根本不覺得那是很嚴重的壞事。相反,那可是克林頓有謀略,堪當重責大任的證明!Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-4233621052645452442016-10-20T21:28:00.000-04:002016-10-21T08:04:04.356-04:00Reading Notes 2016.10.19 ---<a href="http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/forum/20161018/969846/%E7%8E%8B%E6%B5%A9%E5%A8%81%EF%BC%9A%E6%B2%92%E6%9C%89%E6%88%90%E7%82%BA%E8%A5%BF%E6%96%B9%E7%9A%84%E7%8F%BE%E4%BB%A3%E4%BA%9E%E6%B4%B2" target="_blank">王浩威:沒有成為西方的現代亞洲</a><br />
可以跟東亞福利國家的問題放在一起看。<br />
<br />
<br />
---<a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2135-a-life-beyond-boundaries">A Life Beyond Boundaries, by Benedict Anderson </a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #20124d;">[p.191] War, travel, trade and reading kept polities of divergent sizes in constant, if often hostile, contact. Characteristic of this situation is the relation of English to Dutch. Most English people today have no idea that hundreds of English words come from what the huge <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i> categorizes as Old Dutch, but they treasure the hostile expressions 'Dutch courage' (bravery based on drunkenness), 'Dutch treat' (inviting a woman to dinner and insisting that she half the bill) and 'Dutch wives' (solid, hard bolsters for comfortable sleeping).<br />[p.124-125] The debate was really triggered by Nairn's polemical The Break-up of Britian, which argued that the UK was a fossilized, conservative and imperialistic relic of the past, doomed to break up into its four constituent underlying nations, with Scotland leading the way. The book was strongly attacked, especially by Hobsbawm, who declared that no true Marxist could be a nationalist; Marxiam had been committed from the start to internationalism. I like the book very much, for its own sake, but also as an Irishman (Southern Ireland, after centuries of English colonial rule, had only won its independence, by armed struggle, in 1922).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-71566975601204105032016-10-13T19:03:00.000-04:002016-10-21T08:11:02.820-04:00Reading Notes 2016.10.13 ---<a href="https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer">The empty brain, by Robert Epstein</a>
<br />
<br />
此文區分了兩種理解大腦運作的方式,一種是把大腦當成電腦,可以儲存與處理資訊,因此有可能想像下載或複製資訊,甚至把某人的心智整個傳上網路。另一種是把大腦當成某種因應刺激做出反應的有機體 (organism),這有機體不斷地隨著學習與經驗改變自己,因此每個人都是獨特的,以獨特的方式構成,不可能任意加裝或傳輸甚麼資訊。<br />
<br />
雖然作者寫得很有趣,但我有點懷疑這種區分在實際研究上有甚麼助益。可能是因為我對認知科學了解很少,我不太懂第二種假說在研究設計上要處理的是甚麼問題。其次,在我看來,這兩種 "假說" 似乎是可以合併的,只要在第一種假說中加上 "大腦這電腦會隨學習與經驗不斷生成變化,而其牽一髮而動全身的複雜性遠非我們目前能掌握" 即可。作者提到的打棒球比喻,在第一種假說的架構中可能只是個演算法問題。至於大腦中是不是有甚麼特殊內核儲存與處理資訊,並不那麼重要。<br />
<br />
當然,第一種假說顯然是適應於我們目前對大腦乃至身體運作方式的粗淺認識,失之於靜態與機械。第二種假說反映了對認知運作方式的動態或 "有機" 的想像,看起來確實比較有趣,而且在某些方面更直觀。隨著研究的進展,很可能第一種假說會被逐漸拋棄。但是否就會轉向第二種假說?從科學史的一些例子來看,我仍是存疑的。<br />
<br />
和朋友聊到此文,得到另一個看法。電腦的發展可能本就有一部分是希望模擬人腦的運作 (例如文中 von Neumann 的話似可作此解) 。AI 大概是很明顯的例子。因此,與其說研究者把人腦看作電腦來研究,不如說研究者的目標其實是想讓電腦更像人腦。<br />
<br />
<br />
---<a href="http://www.guancha.cn/Ethics/2011_07_10_60973.shtml">许纪霖:近十年来中国国家主义思潮之批判</a><br />
<br />
<br />
---<a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2135-a-life-beyond-boundaries">A Life Beyond Boundaries, by Benedict Anderson </a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #20124d;">[pp.193-194] Though European nationalism adopted key ideas from the Creole nationalism of the America, it was deeply affected by early-nineteenth-century Romanticism, which was foreign to its predecessors. It had huge appeal for outstanding poets, novelists, dramatists, composers and painters. It was also quite aware of, and felt solidarity with (though not always, of course), other popular nationalisms as fellow movements for the emancipation of the people from despotic dynasties - a solidarity later expressed institutionally in the League of Nations, the United Nations, and many other forms. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #20124d;">After the world wars of the twentieth century, however, many young nationalisms typically got married to prey-beard states. Today, nationalism has became a powerful tool of the state and the institutions attached to it: the military, the media, schools and universities, religious establishments, and so on. I emphasize tools because the basic logic of the state's being remains that of <i>rasion d'etat</i> - ensuring its own survival and power, especially over its own subjects.* Hence contemporary nationalism is easily harnessed by repressive and conservative forces, which, unlike earlier anti-dynastic nationalism, have little interest in cross-national solidarities. The consequences are visible in many countries. One has only to think of state-sponsored myths about national histories of China, Burma, both Koreas, Siam, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, or Sri Lanka for Asian examples. The intended effect is an unexamined, hypersensitive provinciality and narrow-mindedness. The signs are usually the presence of taboos (don't write about this!, don't talk about that!) and the censorship to enforce them. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #20124d;">For a long time, different forms of socialism - anarchist, Leninist, New Leftist, social-democratic - provided a 'global' framework in which a progressive, emancipationist nationalism could flourish. Since the fall of 'communism' there has been a global vacuum, partially filled by feminism, environmentalism, neo-anarchism and various other 'isms', fighting in different and not always cooperative ways against the barrenness of neoliberalism and hypocritical 'human rights' interventionism. But a lot of work, over a long period of time, will be needed to fill the vacuum. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #20124d;">* This is not to deny that contemporary nationalism does not still contain a powerful emancipatory and egalitarian element - the huge modern gains in relation to the position of women, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, for example, would have been unimaginable without its help.</span></blockquote>
這段很有趣,也很令人懷疑。19 世紀的民族主義真與國際主義結合嗎?在成功奪取或建造國家機器之前,與其他反封建力量互通聲息可以想像 (你那裡的封建王朝倒台,我這裡的也會難再撐下去),但奪權之後就是另一回事了。至於當代的民權運動,除了利用公民身分主張權利這一點之外,跟民族主義運動有甚麼直接關係?除非他想的是為了對抗外敵,於是藉由擴大賦權進行社會動員的情況。但那也多半是 1970 年代以前的事了吧。<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-28153651696267553132016-01-29T18:25:00.000-05:002016-10-14T13:08:31.619-04:00Reading Notes 2016.01.29<a href="http://www.infzm.com/content/102956" target="_blank">村官为什么涉黑</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.mingpao.com/20140904/msa1.htm" target="_blank">路走到這裏分手:民主回歸派的落幕 by 蔡子強</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.groundbreaking.cn/lishi/jianwangzhilai/2016/0123/5930.html" target="_blank">新老工人跨越时空的对话 by 吴晓</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hjclub.info/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=2727937&view=previous&sid=b28497f68aff3f6d84adc2319d2e9366" target="_blank">论南方工人运动与初步清算泛左翼(上) by 秋火</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thenewslens.com/post/276322/" target="_blank">綠社盟「社運參政」的困境:為什麼強調和人民站在一起,卻讓人很有距離感? by 自由的鬍渣</a><br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-4164241069946158492015-04-05T16:21:00.000-04:002015-04-05T16:30:04.603-04:00That was fantastic找房子時曾遇見一些有趣的屋主。其中一個是位老寡婦,德國人,在美國已經三十多年,但還是會抱怨 "他們美國人餐巾紙一用一大把好浪費"。我去她的小屋時是個濕冷的中午,外頭還飄著大約是那年最後的一場雪。她先是介紹了一圈屋況、房間與各種設備,然後提到過去幾個學生房客,有香港人(送了她一幅花開富貴還掛在牆上)西班牙人伊朗人越南人阿根廷人非洲各國人,當然也少不了各州來的美國學生。其中一個她懷疑是間諜,說是他的行為有點奇怪,後來還搬去跟個警察住。
<br />
<br />
她在廚房餐桌邊捧著她的紅茶,有些靦腆地說,他的第一任丈夫就是個間諜,跟他結婚時還得接受美國政府鉅細靡遺的身家調查。後來丈夫被美國政府派去蘇聯出任務,過程凶險,同伴在機場被蘇聯人射殺,幸好他命大活著回來了。她沒怎麼介紹他的第二任丈夫,但牆上有幅他的油畫肖像,橙紅色的背景,蓄著小鬍子的男人,眉目間充滿情意。<br />
<br />
她說,跟她住需要忍受的一點是,她每周四會跟著廣播節目唱歌劇,一唱一個下午。"電台播的是大都會歌劇院的演出,真的非常好",她露出小孩看煙火時的表情,"我去紐約看過現場,that was fantastic。"
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-2930672582380152852015-04-04T11:07:00.001-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.756-04:00Greig - Vanished Days<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nws9TryHdDo?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-55987053324498434772014-10-01T10:25:00.001-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.766-04:00Lisboa Rainha do Mar by Madredeus<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WNlN3GhKo9g?list=PL8E1B1FED6E50D991" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
陰雨微涼的早晨,莫名想起這首歌,一路哼著去上學。Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-39413484375988466982014-08-15T13:22:00.000-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.761-04:00Reading Note 2014.08.13<a href="http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140730/41362069_0.shtml" target="_blank">农村老人平静自杀:喝农药上吊投河比亲儿子可靠</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5ODA5NTI4Mg==&mid=200873781&idx=1&sn=9669b9e7cba19115ea65539b9f753b70&scene=2&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#rd" target="_blank">“汉奸”:想像中的单一民族国家话语</a><br />
...在真正实现了单一民族国家形式的国度里,反而不会有类似“汉奸”这样的话语。比如,日语中就没有“日奸”或“和奸”一词。日本人用以表达出卖民族利益者之意时,用的是“卖国奴”或“里切者”(背叛者)一词。朝鲜语中也没有“朝奸”一词,原来只用卖国奴(maegugno)。到了二十世纪,韩国人才称李完用为卖国奴(maegugno)、亲日派(chin-ilpa)或者是“民族的叛逆者”(minjog-uimban-yeogja)[51]。其中“民族的叛逆者”一词,又是他们从日语中引进“民族”一词、开始学习近代日本走“民族国家”之路,但这是韩国遭到日本侵略之后才被迫“发现”的话语。单一民族国家反而没有“汉奸”话语,是因为单一民族国家中民族与国家一致,自然没有必要强调种族主义的意义。<br />
<br />
...清末民初革命派的“汉奸”话语,其实是他们企图在多民族国家的母体上,人工催生一个“汉族”单一民族国家时出现的怪胎。二十世纪初革命派接受近代民族主义的目的,其实不在于确认“民族”,而在于建立一个新型的国家──“民族国家”。民族不过是手段,国家才是目的。然而,因为现实的中国不可能成为单一民族国家,“汉奸”话语最终不过是强化了本来只是手段的民族意识而已。2002年末,有人以多民族国家为由表示不宜称岳飞为“民族英雄”。对此国人表现出来的愤怒,就是近代民族主义造成国人将自己的政治认同最终归结在民族,而不是国家的最好写照。<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.163.com/14/0812/10/A3EKGSL500014JHT.html" target="_blank">中国油企在伊拉克闷声发财</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/vietnam-china-and-the-oil-rig-crisis-who-blinked/" target="_blank">Vietnam, China and the Oil Rig Crisis: Who Blinked?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-38136030339984861982014-07-21T15:59:00.003-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.758-04:00Reading Notes 2014.07.21<a href="http://www.zhihu.com/question/24205341" target="_blank">如何看待河南 19 岁少女在「戒网瘾学校」被虐至死?</a><br />
---現實總是比作品殘酷。<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.guhantai.com/2014/0713/467913.shtml" target="_blank">中国大使:部分华商恶习缠身 在非洲窝里斗</a><br />
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">「</span>有些企业还在当地政府内部去寻找代理人,各自收买一批为自己说话的当地官员,2012年,两家公司把坦桑尼亚的交通部长、副部长同时搞垮了,他们为了争项目挑起正副部长的内斗,结果总统把两个人都撤了。<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">」</span><br />
<div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.lifeweek.com.cn/2012/0731/38025.shtml" target="_blank">陈嘉映对话向京:这个世界会好吗</a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">「</span>我们是属于那种为风雅人进行生产的...我说贝多芬不风雅——这个我们都知道——但是听贝多芬的很风雅。...有时去参加某些 “社交界” 的活动,他读你的书,会把你当作一个风雅的人,也是一个社交人,但你知道你不是,你写书,埋头工作。...一个生产者一旦入了风雅圈,生产力就大大下降。如果他习惯了这种圈子,那他作为一个生产者就基本上没什么用了。<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">」</span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-40882091271143148472014-07-12T12:17:00.000-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.763-04:00Reading Notes 2014.07.12<a href="http://arablit.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/the-fragility-of-a-deteriorating-arabic/" target="_blank">The Fragility of a Deteriorating Arabic? by BY MLYNXQUALEY</a><br />
-- I am not sure how true is this. It's not easy to write poems or novels in a foreign language.<br />
-- This Iowa workshop has been quite famous. There must be some reasons for that.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5MjI3NDg2MA==&mid=200582084&idx=2&sn=33eeb2c9f58a9aade30f22320171e3b2" target="_blank">第一批非洲留学生为什么离开中国? by 程映虹</a><br />
-- 聽一個來自肯亞的老師談過,非洲有過各種前綴詞的社會主義,不是因為真的心向社會主義,要發展甚麼新社會主義模式,只是因為在爭取獨立與發展的過程中,必須跟殖民者,無一例外是資本主義國家,劃清界線。<br />
-- 文中提到的台灣青年學者是淡江大學的<a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/china/v011/11.1.liu.html" target="_blank">劉曉鵬</a>。<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.infzm.com/content/89186" target="_blank">山西永济蒲韩乡村社区的综合农协实践 by 杨团</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.ultra-com.org/blog/%E4%B8%BA%E4%BB%80%E4%B9%88%E8%A6%81%E6%9A%B4%E4%B9%B1%EF%BC%9F/" target="_blank">为什么要暴乱?</a></div>
<div>
"当我们每次听到一个战后婴儿潮出生的人说我们这一代是怎么养尊处优,以及他们是怎么在夏天的时候为了挣大学的学费而工作的时候,我们会在心里面计划怎么把他们开膛破肚,然后在黑市卖了他们的器官来偿还我们的学生贷款。"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/52/article/1613" target="_blank">賴建寰:誰還記得國會關說案!?</a><br />
-- 其實,我覺得重點只有一個:誰還記得?<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-62167703366334483182014-03-29T18:44:00.001-04:002016-10-14T13:09:37.769-04:00Cantigas do Maio - Zeca José Afonso<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yK84S0F_UEY" width="480"></iframe>Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-84211564050912935272013-10-26T18:02:00.000-04:002016-10-14T13:10:20.251-04:00Reading Note - 2013.10.25<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex">Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex?</a><br />
想起共產黨宣言中關於無產者被迫獨身的敘述。<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/students-post-crash-economics">Economics students aim to tear up free-market syllabus</a><br />
這類「體制內」呼籲,方向可能是對的,但我相信不會有任何實質影響。這不僅僅是因為學生跟非主流經濟學家人微言輕,更重要的是,歷史已經有足夠多的例子顯示,沒有外部的社會運動衝擊既有體制,一切體制內的或者學術思想上的改革大概都走不遠。<br />
<br />
<a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read-chekhov/?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1">For Better Social Skills, Scientists Recommend a Little Chekhov</a>
<br />
1. 在一個沒甚麼人對契科夫 (或契科夫式的情感與思維) 感興趣的環境裡,你真的確定這是優點嗎?<br />
2. 同是文學作品,亨利米勒跟契科夫的效果大概不會一樣吧?<br />
3. 那麼,對作者的效果呢?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-73235178548801205882013-07-16T11:53:00.000-04:002017-03-28T18:05:50.329-04:00香草檸檬雞This recipe is modified originally from a Portuguese dish, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=c0sGAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Cherie+Y.+Hamilton%22&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=Kl7kUdKTIMez4APh5oHgAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA" target="_blank">Moorish Chicken</a>. But it turns to be a different dish as I marinate the chicken, use totally different herbs (they are parsley, cilantro, mint and cinnamon originally), and switch from poached eggs to boiled and mashed eggs.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitThKbg3UDEfIO4cA1WGbNcgxw_V9RHnMYpvRVnYdug9gSrDEBpo7HYK4jWm7SX0nHRpcjLohbYd_UNrA01BTVpBeEiJSV9CUIT9FjWvIZTqdhAjPr43knLUIeItQZ4srCJiW3pA/s1600/Chicken+No.+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitThKbg3UDEfIO4cA1WGbNcgxw_V9RHnMYpvRVnYdug9gSrDEBpo7HYK4jWm7SX0nHRpcjLohbYd_UNrA01BTVpBeEiJSV9CUIT9FjWvIZTqdhAjPr43knLUIeItQZ4srCJiW3pA/s320/Chicken+No.+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b># Ingredients:</b><br />
4 chicken legs, deboned, cut into small pieces<br />
1 big onion, sliced<br />
1 or 2 kinds of herbs: I use basil and thyme, 1 tablespoon each, all minced<br />
Juice of 2 lemons<br />
2 eggs, boiled and mashed properly<br />
3 tablespoons coconut oil<br />
<br />
<b># Marinade:</b><br />
1 teaspoon salt<br />
1 teaspoon black pepper<br />
1 teaspoon cumin<br />
<br />
Serve 3 to 4<br />
<br />
<b># Steps:</b><br />
1. Cut the chicken into small pieces, rub well with salt, black pepper and cumin, marinate for 3 hours in the refrigerator.<br />
<br />
2. Heat the coconut oil in a large skillet over medium heat, and brown chicken parts on all sides. Add onions and herbs, fry until onions turn soft.<br />
<br />
3. Move the chicken mixture into the boiler. Add the lemon juice and 2 cups of water into the boiler. Cook until the chicken is done.<br />
<br />
4. Place all in a big bowl. Season with few salt and cumin. Sprinkle the mashed eggs over all and above before serving the dish.<br />
<br />
<b># Cook’s note:</b><br />
At step 3, don’t put too much water. The amount of water should be just enough to cook the chicken, otherwise the sauce might be diluted.
Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-48102915746419649832013-02-14T11:52:00.001-05:002013-11-26T15:18:40.192-05:00【當兵】看冊當兵期間,時間的行進方式非常奇妙,不僅時間區段的長短與出現時機很不規律,而且常在不同的心理世界之間切換。<br />
<br />
對我來說,其中一個世界就是書。<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
當兵有很多零碎空閒時間,它們的出現很難預料,往往也會被突然切斷或終結。等長官出現,等搬運裝備,等集合,等射擊,等吃飯,等狀況指令,等車,等收假,等到達目的地。在這些無窮無盡的零碎等待裡,與同伴聊天之外,就是我的讀書時間。<br />
<br />
當兵要讀書,需要一些小技巧。最大的問題就是書的體積。我待的是野戰部隊,而且我也不是預官,沒有小房間沒有辦公桌,多數時候不能帶摸魚包,但是大多數的書都太大太重,藏不進防毒面具包塞不進口袋。怎麼辦?<br />
<br />
我的辦法就是帶著書去影印店,自己動刀把一本厚書拆成數本薄冊,把大書裁成小書,重新裝訂。比如資本論第三卷,天地頭左右邊全裁掉,重新裝訂成六小冊,變成可以放進迷彩褲大腿口袋的文庫本。一些影印書,就直接縮小印。封面或書名有點敏感的也要重新改裝。資本論每一本都變成貨幣銀行學或社會學大綱,印有馬克思頭像的Marx's Capital也改包上Research in Political Economy的自製封面。<br />
<br />
拆書裁書的過程一開始有點不捨,後來很快變得心狠手辣,不僅不心痛而且還有快感,證明以前愛書人的自我形象完全是一場誤會,經不起考驗。退伍之後還忍不住肢解了幾本,至今看到大書依然手癢,隱隱湧動將其大卸八塊的慾望。反倒是拆書裁書重新裝訂的過程中,影印店老闆老闆娘或店員全都哇哇叫,<span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">「這精裝書印得這麼漂亮你真的要這樣做嗎?」害我還得好說歹說並追加銀兩才能完工,</span><span style="font-family: 新細明體, serif;">大概他們從來都是化零為整,如今要化整為零,有違職業道德。</span><br />
<br />
除了把書準備好之外,最重要的就是與同伴或長官打好關係。有活人要跟你講話的時候,死人就要丟一邊,負責工作要先做完,某些不適合看書的時候不要太白目,諸如此類。<br />
<br />
那麼,我都讀了哪些書?文末是目前記憶所及的列表。現在回想起來,最有趣的似乎不是那些書的內容,而是當時那些場景與同伴,那些光影,聲音與氣味。<br />
<br />
陳映真的錄音和國際經濟戰略照理說有點敏感,不過我是在空軍官校的圖書館找到的。另外,我記得步校圖書館也有驗證精實案,自己連隊上則有李國鼎回憶錄,下基地時發現有<a href="http://prole1917.blogspot.com/2007/02/blog-post_4673.html" target="_blank">戀人絮語</a>和東歐短篇小說選。<br />
<br />
午後,獨自或集體留營的午後,陽光穿過浮塵落在我的腰間。<br />
<br />
我在新訓最後等待放假的那個上午,悶熱而嘈雜的中山室裡讀完了悠悠家園。在放假回家的夜車上讀完了The Value of Marx。神經質主體和遼闊的原野的大部分章節,是在下基地時站在裝甲車裡抱著機槍看完的。在部隊裡讀髒話文化史,真 的 非 常 實 用。鏡子一樣的歷史在寢室看完後被同梯借走了。我們在廚房被我媽借走了。Marx's Capital還沒讀完就去開槍了。<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010193545" target="_blank">悠悠家園</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010259026" target="_blank">神經質主體</a><br />
<a href="http://zh.scribd.com/doc/27910148/Ben-Fine-Guide-to-Marx-s-Capital" target="_blank">Marx’s Capital</a><br />
阿亮的博論
<br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010275249" target="_blank">我們</a><br />
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=6sqzi1rH-ccC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">War Time</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010272347" target="_blank">愛上制服:制服的文化與歷史</a><br />
<a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/16630265.html" target="_blank">鹽鐵論校注</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010198085" target="_blank">楊照精選集</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010054309" target="_blank">軍旅札記</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010178171" target="_blank">驗證精實案</a><br />
<a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/34829957.html" target="_blank">資本論</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010048904" target="_blank">西線無戰事</a><br />
The Peculiarity of British Economy
<br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010050670" target="_blank">鏡子一樣的歷史-世說新語</a><br />
<a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/22935642.html" target="_blank">鐵皮鼓</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eslite.com/product.aspx?pgid=1006154491493685" target="_blank">母鼠</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eslite.com/product.aspx?pgid=1006154491493559" target="_blank">遼闊的原野</a><br />
<a href="http://tulips.ntu.edu.tw/search~S5*cht?/tMacroeconomics+and+monopoly+capitalism/tmacroeconomics+and+monopoly+capitalism/1,1,1,B/frameset&FF=tmacroeconomics+and+monopoly+capitalism&1,1,?save=b1104704" target="_blank">Macroeconomics and monopoly capitalism</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010274937" target="_blank">阿盛精選集</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talmidim.cz/filosofie/Value%20of%20Marx.pdf" target="_blank">The value of Marx : political economy for contemporary capitalism</a><br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Essays-John-Berger/dp/0375713182" target="_blank">Selected Essays of John Berger</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010539561" target="_blank">髒話文化史</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010156903" target="_blank">上司若不變成「鬼」:屬下怎麼會成材?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010295563" target="_blank">頭目哈古</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010323307" target="_blank">法國中尉的女人</a><br />
<a href="http://goods.ruten.com.tw/item/show?21209287092866" target="_blank">李國鼎口述歷史</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010168499" target="_blank">一枝煎匙</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010203269" target="_blank">普世戀歌</a><br />
<a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/8288376.html" target="_blank">小邏輯</a><br />
<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52943.A_Fortunate_Man" target="_blank">A Fortunate Man: The Story of a Country Doctor</a><br />
東歐短篇小說選<br />
<a href="http://world.bookinlife.net/product-269964.html" target="_blank">國際經濟戰略</a><br />
<a href="http://libcom.org/library/marxs-theory-crisis-simon-clarke" target="_blank">Marx's Theory of Crisis</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010327866" target="_blank">窮得有品味</a><br />
<a href="http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010197044" target="_blank">藤纏樹</a><br />
戰後台灣的文化特質 陳映真 社會大學系列講座錄音Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10049194.post-38479613067520298682012-09-13T15:36:00.000-04:002012-10-07T15:40:43.741-04:00A Little Dirty Joke我當助教講課的第一天,講了一個從大一進社團就常聽到的老笑話,效果還不錯 :D<br />
<br />
On my first day of TAing, I use this little dirty joke in the 3 discussion sections...<br />
<br />
##What politics is##<br />
<br />
A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?" Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalist. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense."<br />
<br />
So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him...
He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.<br />
<br />
The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."<br />
<br />
The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."<br />
<br />
The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalist is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being
ignored and the Future is in deep shit."<br />
<br />
<br />Prolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07278612868007794165noreply@blogger.com0