逝者如斯: Cognitive Reverie

Turn the page与其他

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:16:24 GMT

On a long and lonesome highway, east of Omaha
You can listen to the engines moanin' out it's one old song
You can think about the woman or the girl you knew the night before
But your thoughts will soon be wanderin', the way they always do
When you're ridin' 16 hours and there's nothin' much to do
And you don't feel much like ridin', you just wish the trip was through

Here I am, on the road again, there I am, up on the stage
There I go, playin' star again, there I go, turn the page

When you walk into this restaurant, strung out from the road
And you feel the eyes upon you, as you're shakin' off the cold
You pretend it doesn't bother you, but you just want to explode
Most times you can't hear 'em talk, other times you can
All the same old cliché's, is that a woman or a man
And you always seem outnumbered, you don't dare make a stand

Out there in the spotlight you're a million miles away
Every ounce of energy, you try and give away
As the sweat pours out your body like the music that you play
Later in the evenin', as you lie awake in bed
With the echoes from the amplifiers ringin' in your head
You smoke the day's last cigarette rememberin' what she said

第一次听到Bob Seger的这首歌，是在图书馆，近一周年的日子。在灯光下从一堆公式中抬起疲倦的眼睛，抑或在书桌前自重重文字向外突围，you can think about the woman or the girl you knew the night before，忽然听到这样的吟唱，总是不自禁的打一个冷战。回头去看记录的文字，从关于幸福到槐花般的不真实，从爱情生涯到笔墨生涯，从离人到孤独，从独自旅行到回家，从不同的事物到不能预测的生活的此间。岁月的盲歌者，在普林秋意渐浓的一周年，带出的都是茫然心绪，都是惆怅情怀。
抛开自己的私人生活，这首歌所带来的东西还有很多：
When you walk into this restaurant, strung out from the road
And you feel the eyes upon you, as you're shakin' off the cold
这样精致的描述，带给我的是艾略特的小酒馆 “Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels，And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells” 和卡夫卡的城堡一般的意象。而
With the echoes from the amplifiers ringin' in your head
You smoke the day's last cigarette rememberin' what she said
是风月之外的另一种忧伤情怀。在这个诗歌遭遇大众娱乐与行为艺术的年代（比如刚刚发生不久的“梨花诗”事件），在这个诸神引退再无天使的年代，在这个崇高与纯洁被粗俗强暴被目为疯狂的年代，能躲在象牙塔之中，深夜在桌前泡一杯茶，独自享受过去的岁月带给我们的欢乐与悲伤，体验空旷孤寂的震撼，亦是快意人生的一种。然而这还不够。悲悯情怀，说起来似乎是知识分子社会责任一类的陈旧话题，在这个年代可以当作the same old cliché弃之不顾的。但是不然，新约马可福音写道：
到了晚上，船在海中，耶稣独自在岸上；看见门徒因风不顺，摇橹甚苦；夜里约有四更天，就在海面上走，往他们那里去。
这也是诗样优美的描述，而其中传达的意思，仔细品尝起来，很能让人为现实的生活状态汗颜的。所谓象牙塔中的天才们，为着科学人文这般听来崇高的事业兀兀穷年，可能真正救赎自己亦救赎世人么？牟宗三先生在中国哲学十九讲中，大骂共产党而外，提出了他认为于中国哲学至为重要的“一心开两门”的构架。而牟先生本人在《五十自述》中所说：
“吾之生命亦因"离其自己"而破裂。此世界是一大病，我之一身即是此大病之反映。此世界是破裂的，我亦是破裂的；此世界是虚无的，我亦是虚无的；此世界人人失所受苦，我亦是"有情既病，我即随病"。但在我只是被动的反映，不是菩萨之"现身有疾"。世界病了，我亦病了。”
所传达的是“一切崩解”的“深深一叹的悲哀”。新儒学救不了世人甚至也救不了先生自己的大悲哀虚无。一心开两门也只好向学究们说去。剩下的不过是完全的悲哀的“孤独·疏离·悬置” 。而与之相比，“释迦牟尼佛能为甚难希有之事。能于娑婆国土五浊恶世。劫浊。见浊。烦恼浊。众生浊。命浊中。得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。为诸众生。说是一切世间难信之法。舍利弗当知。我于五浊恶世。行此难事。得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。为一切世间。说此难信之法。是为甚难。”（《佛说阿弥陀经》）与行走水面的耶稣一样，救赎即便在神也是“是为甚难”的事业。至于个人，于这一页翻过之际，于一庭一院的悲欢之外，希望还能找到别的意义，可以为之穷途跋涉。于自身而外，于心观照一切世间的悲哀虚无，为一切世间尚留悲悯。

Eloquence depends upon images?

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:41:42 GMT

Let us cite a story from Rousseau in his Essay:

//Darius, engaged with his army in Scythia, receives from the King of Scythia a frog, a bird, a mouse, and five arrows. The herald makes the presentation in silence and departs. That terrible harangue was understood; and Darius returned to his own country as quickly as he could. Substitute a letter [namely, a phonetic script] for this sign: the more menacing it is, the less frightening will it be. It will be no more than a boast, which would draw merely a smile from Darius.// (I italicize the words silence and understood)

The story is followed by a footnote given by Derrida (footnote 53 to Part II, Chap 3-III: Of grammatology)

//This story, which all great works on writing recalls, come to us from Clement of Alexandria and Herodotus. Rousseau had perhaps read it in Warburton’s The essay of Hieroglyphs: “The story is told by Clemens Alexandrinus in these Words: It is said that Idanthura, a King of the Scythians, as Pherecydes Syrius relates it, when ready to oppose Darius, who had passed the Ister, sent the Persian a Symbol instead of Letters, namely, a Mouse, a Frog, a Bird, a Dart and a Plow. Thus this Message being to supply both Speech and Writing the Purport of it was, we see, expressed by a Composition of Action and Picture” [p.87]. Warburton recalls Herodotus’s interpretation (I.IV): “Darius believed that the Scythians wanted to tell his through this enigma that they presented his earth and water, and submitted to him. The mouth signified the earth to those in the know; the toad signified water; the bird could be compared to the horse; and by arrows was meant that they were denuding themselves of their power. But Gobrias, one of those who destroyed Magi, gave another interpretation: ‘If instead of fleeing like birds, you will hide yourself in the earth or water, like mice and toads, you will perish by these arrows.’ For Herodotus, in place of one barb, counts five arrows and says nothing of the plough, etc…. I believed I would please the reader by adding this commentary of Herodotus Pherecydes’ text” (pp. 63-65)//

It leads Derrida to conclude that “Decisive consequence: eloquence depends upon image” and “the most eloquent speeches are those containing the most imaginary” (Of grammatology). “The metaphor within spoken language draws its energy from the visible and from a sort of oral picto-heiroglyphics” further added Derrida (ibid).

However, the two different interpretation presented by Herodotus and Gobrias in which the very confusion instead of decisive conclusion dwells, demonstrate, on the other hand, the most imaginary will as well evoke the most ambiguous, and thus its decisive effectiveness and eloquence depend largely on the exact interpretation or re-presentation of the symbols presented, which in turn depends on the common agreement of the interpretation of the signified. Setting up this way, the conclusion is directly subjected to suspicion and suspension; it hence worth its while for a closer and more meticulous investigation.

Admitting that there exist significations (enigma, symbol, representation, etc.) common to diverse human races and cultural backgrounds, say, demonstrating the dead bodies, in particular, heads, of enemy soldiers in battlefield during a warfare can be clearly read as a sort of menacing, with hardly any ambiguity aroused, what if Darius, in this story, sensed the compliment and submission, as explained by Herodotus, of the Scythians, rather than menace, as yielded by Gobrias, from this symbolic enigma? Could he smile at the symbol of submission and flee away at the symbol of menace, at the same time? A second contradictory point arise from Rousseau’s interpretation of interpretations: why shall the symbolic menace, as assumed, stunned Darius away, while on the contrary, an according phonetic speech of menace, were it presented that way, “will be no more than a boast, which would draw merely a smile from Darius”? Shall both speeches, be it symbolic or phonetic, effectively deliver the same information and equally affect the decision of Darius, as a pragmatic leader of the troops, in practice? How surprisingly these apparent contradictions escape from Derrida, the ambiguity inherited in symbolic enigma and the practical reasoning of the interpretations.

Nevertheless, one needs to consider the effectiveness and eloquence of the symbolic language/speech, in gesture/sign/hieroglyphs, which necessarily requires the communicators to be physically visible or appeal to the eyes. As “I can actively close my eyes in front of a representation, but I can only passively receive the phonetic speech while it is delivered”, i.e. I cannot “shut off” functioning of my ears! This way, visible signs must be appealing to be actively received but acoustic signs are completely obliging. Moreover, authentic sounds can travel much longer distance as compared to authentic visions, which is limited by terrain, closure, etc and most sadly, eyelids. Here by authentic, we mean the transport of sounds and vision is by natural media: air, light, and all the rest that have rendered availability to our distant ancestors with no recourse to modern agencies.

It can be argued that comprehension of phonetic speech as well requires common agreement on the usage of acoustic symbols, dialects or native tongues, for instance, are not presumably understood by audience raised in different regions. This seeming difficulty associated with phonetic representation can be readily erased by linguistic education, while effective and accurate interpretations of symbolic enigmas/ picto-heiroglyphics, would yet involve tremendous difficulties that cannot be eliminated by educational means, if not impossible. Here we step over the border onto the degradation of speech through educations, through substitute/supplement of origin of speeches via double actions, through sous rature (under erasure).

关于幸福 happiness

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:18:45 GMT

In this condition, nature, who does everything for the best, has placed him before the first. To begin with, she gives him only such desires as are necessary for self-preservation and such powers as are sufficient for their satisfaction. All the rest she has stored in his mind as a sort of reserve, to be drawn upon at need. It is only in this primitive condition that we find the equilibrium between desire and power, and then alone man is not unhappy. As soon as his potential powers of mind begin to function, imagination, more powerful than all the rest, awakes, and precedes all the rest. It is imagination which enlarges the bound of possibility for us, whether for good or ill, and therefore stimulates and feeds desires by the hope of satisfying them. But the object which seemed within our grasp flies quicker than we can follow…. Thus we exhaust our strength, yet never reach our goal, and the nearer we are to pleasure, the further we are from happiness. On the other hand, the more nearly a man’s condition approximates to this state of nature the more the difference between his desire and his power is small, and he is therefore less remote from happiness…. The world of reality has its bounds, the world of imagination is boundless; as we cannot enlarge the one, let us restrict the other; for all the sufferings which really make us miserable arise from the difference between the real and the imaginative. (Emile, Jean-Jacques, Rousseau. Italics added.)

Thus we note:

1. that imagination, origin of the difference between power and desire, is determined as differance: of or within presence or pleasure [jouossance];

2. that the relationship to nature is defined in terms of negative distance. It is not a question of departing from nature, or of rejoining it, but of reducing its “distance”.

3. that imagination, which excites other virtual faculties, is none the less it self a virtual faculty: “the most active of all” [ibid]. So much so that the power of transgressing nature is itself within nature. It belongs to nature’s resources. Better: we shall see that the power of transgressing holds the reserve in reserve. This being-in-nature has thus the strange mode of being of the supplement. Designating at once the excess and lack of nature within nature. (De la grammatology, Jacques, Derrida)

首先规定幸福happiness在此语境中等同于欲望，或者愿望的满足。个人对于happiness的理解，在阅读卢梭之前，一向奉儒家的学说为圭皋。即幸福的原则在于“求仁得仁”。这个说法不难理解。而卢梭更为我们描述了人类学意义上，幸福原则的进化。本初，自然所提供给人（him, 个体的人）的只是自我保全的欲望与相应的能力(nature-culture, origin-supplement, speech-writing, pity/compassion-love, 即自然－文化，本原－补充，话语－文本，恻隐－爱恋，在德里达的解构主义解读中，是作为一体的两面出现的－其中每一对的联接，在解构的意义下即所谓的differance, trace, difference, etc. －并以此消解传统理性中心主义解读下彼此的对立。而道德则属于对后者的补充，即作为本原的“解构的解构”的范畴，moral: perversion of perversion）卢梭指出，仅在此原始状态下，欲望与能力方能持平，而处于原始平衡状态下的人是非“不幸”的。此后人类的发展，能力和欲望的无限膨胀，与自然的有限供给之间的不平衡愈大，则人愈疏离于幸福的本质。Thus we exhaust our strength, yet never reach our goal, and the nearer we are to pleasure, the further we are from happiness.

在当下的人类知识层次上，自然的供给是有限的，不足以支撑无限膨胀的人类欲望。而人类在知识水平与改造自然的能力上的进步，远远超过了道德与信仰前进的步伐。这就是荷尔德林所谓的“诸神隐退，世界之夜”的时代，这就是尼采所说的“上帝死了”的时代。至于解决的方案，看起来似乎是消极的。The world of reality has its bounds, the world of imagination is boundless. 既然客观自然所能满足的欲望的条件有限，那就只好在主观方面限制欲望的膨胀。在东方儒释道三家，有所谓的内修工夫，所谓“存天理，灭人欲”，所谓“从心所欲，不逾矩”，即把欲望保持在不逾越自然和自我的能力，不逾越“天理”，“天道”的范围以内，内圣外王，则可以“万物皆备于我”，则可以“我欲仁斯仁至矣”。而卢梭的as we cannot enlarge the one, let us restrict the other，在方法论上，与东方哲学如出一辙。

联系现实的世界，西方文明在全球化浪潮中日益主宰世界的大背景下，从强权的“涸泽而渔”的能源政策，到个人拜金享乐的人生观，整个人类文明的大趋势在朝着哲人们指出的达到“幸福”的反方向渐行渐远，渐行渐速。可以预见的是新的融会东西方人生智慧的启蒙运动，将会登台对抗vulgar materialists，并付诸实行。一个回归人性本原的时代应该不远了。

Kerson Hwang 在NTU

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 04:01:42 GMT

Kerson Hwang（黄克孙）要在NTU开讲座，是两个星期前就注意到通知的。根据以往的经验（原谅一个NTU学生的鄙陋吧），以为不过又是一个普通学者，以MIT闻名而已。不过讲座的题目吸引了我：The story of quantum theory。自己半年以来一直做纳米级辐射（nanoscale radiation)）的工作，而量子力学发源于普朗克（Planck）对黑体辐射（black body radiation）的研究，所以多多少少接触了一些。自己手头留着3本物理学的经典著作，也是近期翻阅的，分别是，迪拉克（PAM Dirac）的The principle of quantum mechanics，费曼（RP Feynman）的Lectures on Physics以及外尔（H Weyl）的The theory of groups and quantum mechanics。迪拉克和费曼对于量子力学的贡献自不必讲，而外尔则是产生于哥廷根（Gottingen）那种天才云集的地方的伟大数学家，在上个世纪排名第四，仅次于庞加莱（Poincare），希尔伯特（Hilbert）和科尔莫哥罗夫（Kolmogorov）－这三位被认为是数学史上最后三位集大成的大师。

讲座时间安排在下午三点，根据前两次听 ’t Hooft (1999诺贝尔物理奖)和Osheroff（1996诺贝尔物理奖）讲座的经验，一个小讲堂，入座率大约70％。所以在两点55的时候才跟师兄慢慢走过去－似乎有轻慢大师的嫌疑，呵呵。到了LT6才发现已经坐满了人，中国人和印度人居多，不少还为迟到的同学占了座位，实在出乎意料。看来主办方也低估了老头的影响力啊。

说到主办方，废话几句。对于NTU的IAS （Institute of Advanced Study）, 个人一直非常有意见，一来是普林斯顿的高等研究所（IAS）一直在我心目有崇高地位，并一直认为IAS是普高的专美，而NTU的研究所居然以此冠名，未免沐猴而冠，徒增笑尔；二来，每次的主持人介绍部分都特别难以忍受。比如Osheroff 是做He3 (Helium 3，氦的同位素，中文写作”氚”)在低温下的超流体研究得的诺奖，新加坡的主持人介绍他的工作的时候居然把He3读做 “H. E. tree(新加坡式的3的发音)”，实在无知而且恶俗。

跟师兄找了两个靠墙的位置坐下来听讲，先是主持人的介绍:黄老先生1928年生，1950年毕业于清华，1953年在MIT拿到博士，然后入普林斯顿高等研究所工作（真想问问他对NTU的IAS做何评论），后来回到MIT任教，现在是美国艺术与科学院的院士（这个牛！）。另外还介绍了老先生在文艺方面的成就，提到了他的译作。之后就是进入正题，Kerson Hwang说的是标准而流利的英语，语速很快，但表达非常清晰，显示了老先生思路还相当清晰而且敏锐。

演讲总共45分钟，对于讲量子力学的历史这么大的题目，45分钟只能是蜻蜓点水式的介绍了几个超重量级的人物，波尔，爱因斯坦，薛定谔，海森堡，德布罗意，迪拉克等人。顺带讲解了一下量子力学与传统力学的区分，几个开创性的理论以及公式。基本上没有自己觉得新鲜的东西，倒是涉及到黄老本人研究的统计力学（statistical mechanics）的方面，讲了积分，微分方程在物理上对应的global，local属性，以及一点概率统计的概念在量子力学里面的意义，讲的虽然浅显但很明白。

最后是提问时间，跟每次演讲差不多，大多是印度人提问。大多数问题都是本科学生的，实在不值得一提（关于Planck常量的问题就有3个，更甚者居然有个大一的印尼华人学生说是刚接触黑体辐射，要求老先生推荐参考资料的，巨寒）。而有几个所谓researcher（主要是EEE的）所提的貌似深刻的问题，无非就是拿一个道听途说比较偏一点的理论(e.g. Bell's inequality)，要求老先生给点意见评论，除了卖弄的意味，也实在不值一提。而班门弄斧的所谓研究者，比之提一些幼稚问题的本科生，更让人嫌恶。本来听了一场清丽的讲座，如饮香茗，最后却嗑到了几颗臭花生。这个结尾实在不怎么舒服。

不过老先生的演讲给自己留下印象的确很深。回来后就上网查了一下相关的资料（感谢互联网）。关于他的讨论不少，多是他在MIT或者清华的学生听他演说或者讲课后的评论，最近的一个提到了他要来新加坡。有个学生提到听Kerson Hwang讲课，就好像一桶桶金子迎面砸在头上，自己倒没有这种感觉，可能老先生时间有限，金子还没有砸出来吧。但高屋建瓴的气度确乎是有的。虽然只是听了一次演讲，作为NTU的毕业生，还是有一点责任感把Kerson Hwang在这里的演讲写出来，以补足老先生在学生眼中的这一段经历，庶几使NTU自己生产的学生不至于蒙孤陋的恶名吧。

在华人世界，老先生的译作《易经》和《鲁拜集》比之他在理论物理上的成就似乎受到更多关注。随便摘抄一段台湾学界对黄氏从英文转译（原为阿拉伯文）《鲁拜集》的评论：

“黃克孫的譯本是在一九五二年問世，約比胡適、徐志摩的譯詩晚出三十年，一九八六年台灣的書林重新出版黃譯，引起一陣討論。台大中文系的方瑜教授讚譽有加，認為黃氏與奧瑪珈音「契合無間」，能充分表達《魯拜集》的意境；台大外文系的彭鏡禧教授則認為黃氏才情雖高，但以七絕翻譯卻不合乎現代讀者的需求。政大英語系的劉建基教授也曾以黃氏譯本為例，說明翻譯文體中的「多音」本質：既有波斯的原音，又加上費茲結樓的十九世紀英國聲音，以及中文傳統的聲音。

　　不可諱言，黃氏譯本之所以廣受注目，形式是主因之一：翻開書林版的《魯拜集》，一百零一首整整齊齊，方方正正的七言絕句讓人印象深刻，典雅的中文典故到處可見，「羲和」、「杜康」、「華嚴」、「銅雀台」等等，看了就覺得很有學問。畢竟現在能做舊體詩的人不多了，看到字數整齊，韻腳嚴格，典故頻密的格律詩，大家的直覺就是「佩服」。就像前一陣子大陸傳出中學生以文言文應試，成了全國大新聞。姑且不論該名學生的作品內容如何，光是聽到「文言文」的形式，大家就很佩服了，這也無非是因為當代人多半不能做文言文的關係。”

既能精通文学艺术的黄钟大吕，又能徜徉于理论物理的学术殿堂，身兼文理，学贯中西，老一辈大师学者的才情实在让人敬佩。让我辈晚学不禁高山仰止之叹。

再说几句闲话。“Pascal 据说14岁的时候，就已经出席了法国高级数学家的聚会，18岁发明了一台计算机，是现在计算机的始祖。尽管如此，Pascal成年之后最终致力于神学，他认为上帝对他的安排之中不包含数学，所以完全的放弃了数学。35岁的时候，Pascal牙疼，不得不思考一点数学问题来打发时间，不知不觉间，竟然疼痛全无。于是，Pascal认为这是上天的安排，所以继续开始做数学家。Pascal这次复出的时间不到一周，但是已经发现旋轮线的最基本的一些性质。尔后，他继续研究神学。”（摘自“Heroes in my heart”）今天去听黄老的讲座前本来有点头痛。听完之后，去喝咖啡的时候，居然感觉神清气爽，头痛全消。看来不仅数学可治牙痛，量子力学也可以治疗头痛。可惜曹操生错了时代，当时枉杀华神医。