从读大学开始，死亡这个主题就一直挥之不去，平静一段日子，就会有生命陨落在巴掌大的校园。直到毕业，这陨落离我也越来越近，最终在相识的陨落间穿过毕业，别离了这校园，陨落却在身后继续。
火车相撞是天灾人祸，遇难者名单里却看到了不相识校友的名字，在校内网里搜索他的名字，迎面而来的是他生活的点滴。
不相信吗？生命就这样陨落了……
Monthly Archive for 四月, 2008
书名：1984
作者：乔治·奥维尔（George Orwell）
评分：9.5/10
在我看来，所谓“经典”是最难读的一类书。总觉得读书是个放松的过程，可以放纵想像去任意驰骋，肆意的凭自己的爱憎好恶大加褒贬。对经典却很难这样放肆。一来，经典往往已被前人彻底解剖，读时脑子里早已充满了先入为主的各种意见；二来，经典往往是名家所作，受众口称赞，读起来难免心有压力，万一读不进去，或者是不喜欢，总觉得是自己的问题，是万不敢往作者那边去找原因。
《1984》就是一本经典。这部乔治·奥维尔出版于1949年的小说以“未来”1984年的伦敦为背景，描写了生活在权威国家大洋国（Oceania）的政府雇员温斯顿·斯密斯（Winston Smith），从对国家的权威“老大哥”（Big Brother)乃至国家本身产生怀疑，到寻求反抗，被作为政治犯进行思想改造，到最后思想“涤清”后被枪决的可怖故事。在冷战的大背景下，这部作品被普遍认为是影射苏联，在西方世界产生了巨大的影响。书中的诸如“老大哥正看着你呢！”（Big brother is watching you!)之类的句子已经成为了西方文化的一部分，甚至英语里还出现了“Orwellian”一词，用来形容与奥维尔作品描述相似的事物。
奥维尔描述的“未来”没能成为现实，1991年，1984年的七年后，苏联解体了。但“未来”似乎却又确实发生过，据说解密后的苏联档案显示，《1984》小说里的国家机器对历史的系统性篡改确有真实版本——斯大林曾经威胁列宁的遗孀克鲁普斯卡娅，说如果不听话，就“给列宁另找个寡妇”，就是说把正牌列宁夫人的一切档案销毁，然后告诉全国，列宁的夫人长期另有其人。而中国自己从大跃进到文革的历史，也能从这本书里看到熟悉的影子。
《1984》，这本以对我有特殊意义的年份为题的书，带给我震撼是全方面的，虽然在今天看来，书中的批判并不新鲜。成书于半个世纪前，它对历史的预见是惊人的，那种对人类社会末世审判般的描述，只能让读过的人用心惊胆颤来形容，继而庆幸自己生活在一个好，至少不那么差的，年代。然而书中对我震动最大的，并不是它精准的预见，而是书中探讨的一个略带哲学色彩的主题——真相。
很长一段时间，我一直相信事物是客观的。一棵树就是一棵树，它独立于你我而存在，或许这棵树在你我眼中的形象略有不同，也许你喜欢这树上的果实，也许我讨厌这棵树遮挡了我房间的光线，但并不能改变这棵树所存在的事实。这棵树存在在那里的，它的果实，它遮挡了阳光，都是这种存在的一部分。这种存在不会因你我而变化，变化的只是你我对这棵树的主观好恶，树的存在就是客观，而客观的东西就是真相。
但渐渐的，我发现，这个客观的东西似乎并不那么“客观”。一个婴儿看见一个东西，他不知道这是什么，他发现周围的人都管这个东西叫树，于是他也管这东西叫树。对婴儿来说，别人眼中看到的这个东西是什么形象，和自己眼中的形象是不是一致并不重要，重要的是当牙牙学语的他把自己看到的这个东西叫做“树”后，父母亲友会给予他某种鼓励，可能是夸奖称赞，也可能仅仅是理解婴儿所说的话——对婴儿来说，能够与身边的人沟通便是莫大的鼓励了；当婴儿把他看到的这个东西叫做别的什么时，父母亲要么是纠正，告诉婴儿这是树，要么不明白婴儿所说的。总之婴儿会发现，管这个东西叫树比叫其它什么有更多好处。于是婴儿接受这个东西为树。无论是婴儿，还是管这东西叫树的其它人都不知道，也不可能知道，婴儿眼中的这个“树”的形象和其他人眼中的“树”的形象是否一致。而只要婴儿承认这个东西是“树”，这东西在婴儿眼中的形象究竟是什么，和其他人眼中的形象是否一致也就变得不重要了。我们的所有概念似乎都是这样的一个接受过程，在这样的过程里，我们只是接受了其他人普遍接受的东西而已，而我们自然而然觉得，这些被普遍接受的东西是客观的。
那么这些被人们普遍接受的东西是如何被普遍接受的呢？在我看来，这实际上只是人和人之间达成共识的过程。每一个人都通过自己的眼睛看这个世界，每一个人都无法知道自己眼中看到的世界和别人眼中看到的世界是否一致。通过沟通，人们达成了各种各样的共识，在这样的共识里，人们定义了树、太阳、花、阳光、好、坏等各种各样的概念，这样的共识，是人们交流的基础。那些被普遍接受，少有疑议的共识，像是树、花、太阳等的存在，似乎就是所谓的客观。而如果人和人之间交流后达不成共识，这些达不成共识的观点似乎就成了人们所说的主观。就像那棵给你带来果实却又遮挡了我房间阳光的树，树本身的存在你我达成了共识，于是就成为客观的，树的好坏你我看法不同，你我不同的看法便是主观的。所谓客观的东西，只是人和人透过语言或其它其它交流途径所达成的共识。
很多方面，所有人完全达成共识并不容易，似乎总会有人有些不同观点，于是客观的东西似乎又变成了绝大多数人所达成的共识——对于少数人，比如那些指着“树”硬要叫“太阳”的人，把他送进疯人院很多人觉得也是理所应当。可是，这看似“理所应当”的东西真的就“理所应当”吗？《1984》里描述了这样一个故事：
主人公温斯顿在大洋国政府的真相部（Ministry of Truth）工作，每天的工作却是对事件记录的系统性篡改——大洋国不久前还和东亚国（Eastasia）结盟与欧亚国（Euroasia）作战，可却突然变成了和欧亚国结盟与东亚国作战，所有相关的资料统统被修改成从一开始大洋过就和东亚国作战。除了温斯顿，几乎所有的人都毫不质疑的接受这种说法，温斯顿怀疑，却不得不装作相信。当温斯顿最终因为怀疑犯了思想罪（Thoughtcrime）被投入友爱部（Ministry of Love）的监狱，他被酷刑折磨，被要求相信二乘二等于五……温斯顿屈服了，只有一个人，他无法证明他所说的真相，党（the Party）掌握所有记录、资料，当温斯顿坚持他的说法时，他受到酷刑折磨，对温斯顿来说，他无法证明二乘二到底等于多少，对他来说，无论等于多少似乎都没有太大差别，而接受等于五可以让他免受皮肉之苦……
故事读来很恐怖，也看似荒唐，因为我们知道二乘二是等于四的，我们站在小说以外的世界看小说里的故事，我们周围的所有人都知道二乘二等于四，我们无法证明它，但它又是不言自明的，这是我们达成的共识中的一个。可在很多情况下我们并非置身事外，我们是事件的一部分，我们对事件有我们自己的解读和看法，而这种解读和看法偏偏又和其他人不同，还有许多人试图影响我们对事件的解读和看法，我们没有共识。没有共识，真相又在哪里呢？
《1984》里“党”的三句口号颇耐人寻味：
战争即和平（WAR IS PEACE)
自由即奴役（FREEDOM IS SLAVERY）
无知即力量（IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH）
Below pictures are taken in Paris of the Olympic Torch Relay. The girl, Jin Jing, was sitting in a wheelchair when protesters tried to grab her torch. These pictures are being widely circulated in Chinese websites. Why do you thing Chinese are so angry towards anti-Beijing-Olympics protesters?
认真的考虑了一下立场，我决定5月1日不去家乐福。我并不认为家乐福应该被抵制，我只想对西方人发出我的声音。
作为一个经济学的学生，我深知抵制某国产品本身很难说是对该国的一种“惩罚”。在全球化的今天，企业本身的国籍早已很难分辨，抵制所造成的损害也未必就一定由抵制的目标群体承担。更何况，对一国产品的抵制，从长期看，会导致本国产品在相同价格水平上的竞争力落后于被抵制国的产品——在相同价格水平上，抵制会造成被抵制国产品处于竞争劣势，迫使其采取其它提高竞争力的手段，如提高效率，改善质量等，长期结果是在同等价格水平上，被抵制国产品优于本国产品。
作为一家零售企业，对家乐福的抵制不仅仅会直接影响其在华员工的利益，更重要的是，家乐福会利用其在分销体系中的相对优势地位，把抵制所造成的损失转移到上游厂商，比如延长对上游厂商的帐期，甚至巧立名目迫使上游厂商为抵制直接买单，而这些厂商中绝大多数是中国企业。对家乐福抵制的很大一部分后果要由这些中国企业来承担。
但5月1日，我不会去家乐福，我并不是要抵制法国企业，我只想通过这种方式对西方发出我的声音。西方媒体总是认为，中国是“专制国家”，中国人没有“人权”，面对中国人对西方媒体的抗议与愤怒，有不少人认为这不过是因为政府的宣传。我希望借此能让西方人明白，在西藏和奥运问题上，他们已经触动了中国人的核心价值，我希望借此能让西方人反思，满口“自由平等”的他们在对待中国时，是否做到了言行一致，他们是否给予了中国人同样的尊重，是否耐心而无偏的倾听了中国人的声音。
我承认，我的行动对家乐福并不公平，我更多的只是想通过吸引西方媒体的关注来达到发出声音的目的。但我的行动将用最简单最和平的方式进行，这种方式对家乐福的影响也将是微乎其微的，我将在公元2008年5月1日0时0分0秒到公元2008年5月1日23时59分59秒的这段时间里，按照我旧有的生活轨迹行走，唯一的不同，是在这段时间里我将避开家乐福这座超市，仅此而已。
5月1日，我不去家乐福，我只想让西方人听到中国人的声音。
Once again, the New York Times shows its ignorance about China and Chinese. Yes, the paper successfully predicted the full retirement of a former president, but apparently when things dive deep into an identity issue, the Times does not know what it is talking about.
In an editorial published today, titled The Torch and Freedom, the paper “kindly” offered help to China:
Stop arresting dissidents. Stop spreading lies about the Dalai Lama, and start talking to him about greater religious and cultural freedoms for Tibet. Stop being an enabler to Sudan in its genocide in Darfur. In other words, start delivering on the pledge you made to the International Olympic Committee to respect human rights — which, by the way, include the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly.
The editorial went on trying to explain why the Times is being resented by many Chinese:
Just so, the Communist authorities in China have been fanning nationalist resentments among their citizens with claims that protests against their repressive policies are staged by hostile foreign forces bent on ruining China’s grand Olympic party. The popular anger then makes it easier for the regime to arrest dissidents, stifle the news media and blame a “Dalai Lama clique” abroad for the troubles in Tibet.
This fits exactly into what I described as “arrogant westerners” in my last blog post. These westerners simply believe they know what Chinese are thinking, and hope they could get support from Chinese. When they don’t, they blame Chinese government for “fanning nationalism”.
It is especially interesting reading “stop spreading lies about the Dalai Lama”. The paper seems sure about its knowledge about Dalai. Unfortunately however, I doubt any serious academic work, even books and papers published in western world, was read by the Times’ editors. If they did read any, they would find Dalai is almost as much to blame as Chinese government in the current dilemma. Still, the only reason I can think of as why the Times blame Chinese government wholly for the Tibet problem is simply the paper’s preference. The Times just doesn’t believe what communists said.
I am Chinese but I am not communist. I read the Times and other American and European papers regularly and I would like to write about my opinion here. I’m interested to see if I would also be labeled as “brain-washed” Chinese just because I wrote something different. Below are my responses to the Times’ “help”:
- Stop arresting dissidents.
Sounds not bad. Only Chinese doesn’t care about this issue that much. Chinese know about these dissidents, but usually don’t care a lot. Political liberty is being discussed, sometimes even by the Government itself, yet most Chinese simply are not interested in the topic. You constantly read about this topic on the Times? Surprise! Isn’t that the Times’ “preference”? - Stop spreading lies about the Dalai Lama, and start talking to him about greater religious and cultural freedoms for Tibet.
Well, Chinese government might not tell the whole story, but neither does your lovely “spiritual leader”. Read some serious work before making irresponsible judgments! Finding out why previously talks stalled and why Chinese government doesn’t trust Dalai from an independent source! (Which excludes Dalai’s followers as well as the Chinese Government!!!)
Compared with American, yes, Tibetans may enjoy less religious and cultural freedom, but if compared with other Chinese, I don’t see they enjoy anything less. As compared with what they enjoyed under Dalai’s rule; of course they used to have what Dalai called “freedom”—it was “freedom” to warship Dalai under his rule! Tibet was then theocratic and Dalai considered Tibetan’s god!! Why do you think Dalai want a “free” Tibet? Think about Iran’s theocracy!!!
Regarding reserving Tibetan culture, the risk it is facing is actually from globalization instead of Han Chinese. In fact, Han Chinese are busy worrying about their own culture reservation. Kicking all the Han Chinese and muslims out of Tibet might help to reduce the influence of the modern society, but unless Tibetans lock themselves from the outside world, there is no way to maintain the “purity” of their culture. Aren’t exiled Tibetan youth in India following Dalai meeting a similar problem? Can we say Dalai is committing his own “Cultural Genocide” to his fellow Tibetans? - Stop being an enabler to Sudan in its genocide in Darfur. In other words, start delivering on the pledge you made to the International Olympic Committee to respect human rights — which, by the way, include the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly.
Again, Chinese doesn’t care about Darfur much, neither about human rights issues. Without Renaissance, we simply don’t have that kind of culture, at least for the moment. Haven’t you found out the Times write only about a few dissidents consistently. I guess that’s basically China’s whole dissident community already!
Talking about human rights, yes, China has many issues. But things are indeed getting better, and Chinese government is delivering its commitment to some extent. Only 30 years ago, people were executed without even trial, and now Chinese are already talking about “rule of law”. The government’s response to the riot is already with unprecedented restraint. We can and should expect more. But over one single night and China turns a democracy? It’s simply impossible! Keep in mind it was until 1965, roughly 100 years after the Civil War, when the African-American got the real voting rights! - The Communist authorities in China have been fanning nationalist resentments among their citizens…
Judged by western standard, Chinese might be considered as nationalistic. But it is a way much complicated issue rooted deeply in Chinese culture and history, not over-simplified Government’s fanning. I explained a little bit in my last blog post.
Other than showing its arrogance and ignorance, this editorial of the Times is nothing constructive but misleading its readers, fanning resentments from Chinese or widening gap between westerners and Chinese. The Times itself should try something suggested to Chinese about the Tibet issue — Understand a different culture!
最近评论