2012年4月24日 星期二

哈維爾與布羅茨基(貝嶺)"Exiled: On China"

數月之前 見過貝嶺一次 C. Milosz百年冥誕紀念會(波蘭駐臺文化辦事處)......


Chinese poet in exile on the power of words

The Chinese writer Bei Ling recently presented his autobiography in Berlin. His book talks about Beijing's literary underground in the 1980s and the trials of being a writer in exile.
The small bookstore in the east of Berlin was packed. With his long hair tied back and wearing a black cotton smock, the author seemed the epitome of the avant-garde poet as he read to his audience from his laptop: "At the most extreme end of exile / I am a constant curse / On the map of my homeland."
The Chinese writer Bei Ling was in the store in Berlin to launch his autobiography. His book tells the story of Beijing's literary underground in the 1980s and the trials of being a writer in exile.
"Exiled: On China" is Bei Ling's second book and has just been published in German. However, it was originally supposed to be published by a Taiwanese firm.
"The publisher has good connections with China," the poet explained. "The contract was already signed but they decided not to print the book."
Democracy wall
In the book, Bei Ling describes how he discovered the "democracy wall" on Beijing's Xidan Street as a 19 year old. From December 1978 to December 1979, activists from the pro-democracy movement discussed ideas by posting big-character posters on this wall.
Bei Ling, whose first book is a biography of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, says that he had never heard of "human rights" until then and was fascinated by the notion, giving in to an inner compulsion to express himself about politics and literature.
He also brings to life the smoky back rooms where tea would be brewed and underground poets would discuss their works.
However, most of the book is about exile. Bei Ling received a grant to travel to the US a year before the protests broke out on Tiananmen Square back in 1989. He followed developments there from afar, always wondering whether he should fly back to take part. He never did.
After the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protesters were killed by the Chinese army, he stayed in the US.
However, his English was poor, he felt lonely, and he fell into a depression. "I was not only illiterate in English, I was a complete idiot," he recalled in Berlin. "In class, I was nothing more than a stuttering refugee, not a writer."
Thus, he explained, shortly after discovering the power of words and the idea of freedom, he lost the capacity to express himself.
'Free but not comfortable'
At the end of the 1990s, Bei Ling returned to China where he tried to publish an underground magazine. He was soon arrested and deported to the US and has not been allowed to return to Beijing since.
"I feel comfortable in China," he explained. "But not free. Whereas I feel free in the West but not comfortable."
In Berlin, he praised the fact that the international community had become more attentive to the plight of dissidents in China. “Everybody knows Ai Weiwei is a dissident artist. There was nobody 20 years ago in China whom the whole world knew as a voice of dissent.”
Bei Ling first became known to a wider audience in Germany in 2009 when China was the official guest of honor at the Frankfurt Book Fair. He and the poet Dai Qing were invited to take part in a symposium about Chinese literature along with an official delegation.
As the result of pressure from Beijing, his invitation was then withdrawn. However, the outcry in the media and the public was so great that he was re-invited. When he came onto the stage, the official Chinese delegation left the room.
The affair, which he describes in his book, has paradoxically become pertinent again. Bei Ling's reading in Berlin took place just hours after his return from London where he had taken part in an event organized in protest against this year's London Book Fair where China is guest of honor. The organizers seem to have drawn their own conclusions from the PR fiasco at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2009 by not inviting any exiled writers or dissidents.
Bei Ling said he had met a good friend from his days in the Beijing underground, whom he had not seen for years. He was part of the official delegation. "Those writers who didn't leave China at the time have now been bought by the state," he said.
Author: Matthias Böllinger / act
Editor: Grahame Lucas

貝嶺 /簡介:

貝嶺,1959年生於上海,6歲遷回北京,曾下鄉務農及在工廠做工,1978至1982年在大學就讀期間參加北京西單民主牆運動及地下文學活動。大學畢業 後曾作過教師、圖書館管理員、夜間病人看護、記者、中國社科院于光遠辦公室編輯、深圳大學管理系講師。1988年底赴美國文學訪問。現任美國哈佛大學費正 清東亞研究中心研究員。著有詩選《今天和明天》(中國漓江出版社)、《主題與變奏》(黎明文化)。1993年在波士頓創立《傾向》文學季刊。是中國大陸旅 美的流


【貝嶺/專訪 】

1999年9月3日,捷克共和國總統、著名劇作家瓦斯拉夫‧哈維爾(Vaclav Havel)在捷克共和國首都布拉格的總統府會見了正在捷克短期渡假及工作的旅美中國詩人、《傾向》文學人文雜誌總編輯貝嶺,會見中,哈維爾和貝嶺進行了 廣泛的交談,就他對中國未來的看法、何時前往中國訪問、人權與國家主權的關係、自己未來的寫作規畫及和其他著名作家的關係等問題回答了貝嶺的提問。


編按:1999年9月3日,捷克共和國總統、著名劇作家瓦斯拉夫‧哈維爾(Vaclav Havel)在捷克共和國首都布拉格的總統府會見了正在捷克短期渡假及工作的旅美中國詩人、《傾向》文學人文雜誌總編輯貝嶺,會見中,哈維爾和貝嶺進行了 廣泛的交談,就他對中國未來的看法、何時前往中國訪問、人權與國家主權的關係、自己未來的寫作規畫及和其他著名作家的關係等問題回答了貝嶺的提問。 陪同哈維爾總統會見貝嶺的還有總統辦公室主任、以及亞洲事務顧問MILAN SLEZAK、總統府新聞辦公室主任MARTIN KRAFL等,交談分別用中文和捷文進行,並由捷克翻譯互譯。哈維爾先生的回答最後由捷克布拉格的查理大學漢學系主任羅然(Olga Lomova)教授譯成中文。


貝嶺(以下簡稱貝):哈維爾先生,您好!您還記得1995年6月在哈佛大學,在您獲得榮譽博士學位並擔任哈佛大學畢業典禮演講人的典禮之後,我們曾短暫地 見過面嗎? 哈維爾(以下簡稱哈):我記得,記得我們見過面 貝:我想聽聽您對中國的現在及未來的看法。中國是一個有著廣大人口的巨大國家。中國政府近二十年來主要致力於發展經濟,容許、最後並鼓勵了自由的市場經 濟。可是,在政治上,中國仍舊是一個由共產黨控制一切的國家,中國目前沒有被西方稱之為民主的主要制度,如:政黨政治,自由的省市及地方選舉、由不同的政 黨推出候選人的總統競選和議會選舉,沒有獨立的媒體和新聞自由,甚至沒有嚴格意義上的自由出版(所有的出版社都是國營的,沒有私人出版社),而近二十年來 城鄉社會的惡質商業化,也使文化和傳統受到了空前的摧毀。您怎樣看待今日中國的情形?


哈:當然,中國是一個很大的國家,它的歷史和文化傳統和制約著我們歐洲生活的歷史文化傳統很不一樣。在中國,很多情況是特別的。可是我想有一件事在中國和 在世界上的任何的地區是同樣的,也就是說,以自由的經濟和經濟主體的獨立性為基礎的經濟發展,假如長期缺少政治的民主,是不可能持續的。這種不對稱的情況 可能維持十年、甚至二十年,但不可能是永久的,這在地球上的任何一個地方都一樣。 我曾經好幾次和其他國家的政治領袖討論過這個問題。在新加坡,我記得曾跟他們的已差不多變成神的「新加坡奇蹟」的創造者李光耀先生也談到這一個問題。李先 生說,他們的歷史和文化傳統和西方不一樣,他們是另一個世界,在新加坡,把市場經濟的蓬勃發展和稍微有一點獨裁主義特徵的政治制度結合在一起是完全可能 的。他甚至強調,不只是可能,而且和英國和歐洲大陸正相反,它是必要的。 一方面我很有興趣聽他的話,並使我能意識到兩種不同文化的差別,可是另一方面,我也就這一點和他爭論,因為我能提出很具體的例子,用事實證明,兩種那麼相 反的東西(自由的經濟、不自由的社會)的共處共存是不能長期存在的。這是我對中國現狀的基本看法。



 哈:在我目前還是捷克共和國總統的時候,我確實很想去中國,我還有兩年半的時間(指總統任期-訪者註)。我確實收到了很熱烈的邀請,請我去中國訪問和參 觀。但我希望把我的正式訪問和一些我個人也感興趣的訪問和見面放在一起進行,我不知是否可能。比如:我同時也想訪問台灣、訪問西藏,我也想跟一些持不同政 治觀點的中國公民見面,也聽聽他們的想法。 

貝:以目前中國政治領導人的思考方式,我想他們會很難答應您的某些請求。但隨著中國的逐步開放,您的著作、許多文章,也包括少量的文學作品給了中國的知識 份子相當的影響。我的建議是,假如您能去中國,您應該在中國的某一所著名大學發表演講,並直接和大學中不同思想觀點的知識份子及駐華大使館內會見一些您想 見的中國作家、戲劇導演和知識份子,至少可以和他們探討文學,瞭解中國的文學發展,假如您去台灣,相信可以更為自由地見任何人,在任何地方發表演講。您也 可以比較中國大陸和台灣地區政治制度、文化發展以及人文傳統的異同。


哈:我真的希望會有這樣的機會。假如去中國大陸,除了北京和上海之外,我還希望去看看別的地方,比如香港。這一切目前都還是一些抽象的願望,現在還沒有位 這樣的訪問做任何準備。 貝:我注意到今(1999)年4月29日,您在加拿大國會的演說中關於人權高於國家主權的主題思考,您認為個人比某依國家更為重要,您強調了「可以為某人 或值得為他而死的唯一價值-民族國家,已經超過了其最高頂點而開始走下坡路」。我特別對您在這場演說中的最後一段話印象強烈,您說「國家是人的產物,而人 是上帝的產物」。您能再多一點闡述嗎? 哈:我想不應該很快、或用什麼激進的作法去取消或者限制國家的主權。我有一個看法,就是以長期歷史發展的角度來看,人權比國家的主權(一天比一天)更重 要。按照我的看法,未來的國家將成為這個地球上眾多的行政單位之一,如現在的州、地區、市、或各種其他的國際組織或區域組織。所有這一些行政單位在一起要 創造出在一個非常複雜的世界上所有人類共處的結構。但是,在這結構上面,我希望還有一種最高價值-人。尊重人、尊重人各方面的自由、尊重人的尊貴。這種對 人的尊重,應該是整個人類社會共同承擔的責任。 

貝:您是一個劇作家,是一個喜歡在寫作中探究人的存在境況的文學家。在您一手促成的1989年底將捷克共產黨政府和平地請下台的被稱為「天鵝絨革命」之 後,您成為了國家的總統,您在做總統的近十年中,還有時間或可能從事文學或戲劇的創作嗎?將來,在您的總統任期結束之後,您會有特定的寫作生涯規畫嗎?這 是一個作家才會問您的問題(笑)。(此刻,哈維爾也誠實和他的顧問們笑著用捷文說道:我一句也聽不懂他講的中文,而他也聽不懂我講的捷語,藉助於翻譯,我 們在交談。這種情景本身就像是一齣荒誕劇。) 

 哈:謝謝!我真希望能重新回到寫我的戲劇、文章的生活中去,將來,在我總統任期結束後,除了文學寫作之外,我可能也會寫自己的回憶錄。而且,將來不作總統 時,我一定會很輕鬆、舒服。寫作時也不必考慮到各種社會政治因素,不必向我現在準備總統演講時那麼小心挑選詞句,講話那麼枯燥乏味。 貝:1992年,您發表了一篇著名的演講,叫做「後共產黨主義的惡夢」(The post-communist nightmare),隨後,此文刊登在美國著名的《紐約書評》(New York Review of Book)上,在文中,您分析了共產主義這一人類過去的存在惡夢對今天這一後共產主義時代人類的人性影響。當時,約瑟夫‧布羅斯基(Joseph Brodsky,美籍俄羅斯流亡詩人,1987年諾貝爾文學獎得主),也在《紐約書評》上就您的這一演講寫了回應的公開信,批評了您文章中的一些觀點,隨 後您又給予了回覆。這些文章經過中文的翻譯發表在《傾向》雜誌上後,引起了中國的一些知識份子,特別是當時流亡在海外的中國知識份子的關注和思考,請問您 之後有機會再和布羅斯基進行討論嗎?您們見過面嗎?記得您曾邀他和您見面交談,以化解誤會。 

 哈:是的,布羅斯基寫了這封公開信,跟我之前寫的那篇演講中的觀點進行商榷,以後呢,我也寫了一篇回答。我們的那次商討和爭論具有各種多樣的誤會、錯誤甚至曲解。我們確實討論到有本質意義的問題。也是一個非常重要的主題,可是那次的討論並不成功,混亂了,我不把它當作我思想和著作中輝煌的部分。我們之間的 誤會無疑將來會弄清楚。 貝:可惜的是,布羅斯基已經去世了,由於心臟病突發,於1996年1月在紐約去世的。 哈:他已經去世了嗎?真的嗎?太可惜了,很奇怪我沒有聽到這個消息,真不好意思,這真的令人震驚。 

 貝:捷克小說家,現居法國的米蘭.昆德拉 在台灣和中國大陸有著很高的文學聲譽,他幾乎所有的小說都已經在中國大陸和台灣被譯成中文出版,他早期的代表作《生命中不能承受之輕》在中國和台灣極其暢 銷。假如我的猜測沒錯的話,當年您本人和他都被剝奪了發表及出版作品的權力,也被視為異議份子,你們曾是好朋友,可是早年您和他在關於捷克作家和知識份子 怎樣在在蘇軍侵佔捷克及後來胡薩克政權嚴酷統治的情形下有所為,及擔當責任上,產生過分歧,也有過一場廣為人知的爭論。您和昆德拉這些年常見面嗎?

 哈:我每次去法國一定要和昆德拉見面,大概是今(1999)年3月,我正式訪問過法國,我和我太太和他在一起吃飯,相聚了三、四個小時。我們是好朋友。確實,近三十年前,我們(在海外的報紙上)有過爭論。對於我們當時的爭論,我後來在自傳體對話錄《來自遠方的提問》中,還發表過一些看法。我順便說明一下, 我還是相信,當時說對的是我。中國現在能夠出版昆德拉那些有趣的小說,當然很好。 

貝:關於您著作中文版的出版的情況,我也想向您介紹一下,1998年,《獄中書簡─致親愛的奧爾嘉》(Dopisy Olze)(探索文化出版)是您的第一本著作,正式翻譯成中文在台灣和香港出版。在這之前,您寫於捷克斯洛伐克共產主義制度時期的思想論文及戲劇,曾以 《來自遠方的拷問》,書籍名稱被改為《哈維爾自傳》。我想雖然目前中國大陸仍然無法出版您的著作,但是,您的著作仍能在有著出版自由的台灣和香港出版。特 別是在中國,知識份子讀者非常希望能讀到您的著作。 
哈:中國大陸和台灣的讀者和知識份子對我書的興趣當然讓我非常高興。利用這次採訪的機會代我問候中國的讀者和知識份子。謝謝他們的關注和善意。我也感謝你 注意我的著作,甚至幫助我的書有了中國讀者。這些話不是一個有野心的作家說的。現在的世界需要所有的人相互對話和瞭解,這是全人類的共同利益。 貝:謝謝您的會見和一一回答我的問題。

文 字有時真的奇妙。如果說布羅茨基(Josef Brodsky)是一位深諳人性的思想家詩人,善以犀利的思想力量,密集地將他的質疑擲向對手。而哈維爾(Vclav Havel,1936年10月5日–)則好用他低調的老練和哲人般四兩撥千金般的不疾不徐從容應答。所以,他們的文字一旦碰撞,擦出火花,不僅精采,而且 發人深省。
1994年2月17日,美國最重要的政治和文化雙周刊《紐約書評》(New York Review of Books)上,1987 年諾貝爾文學獎得主、美籍前蘇聯流亡詩人約瑟夫‧布羅茨基針對哈維爾在1993年5月27日的《紐約書評》上發表的、原為哈維爾獲得美國喬治‧華盛頓大學 授予其總統勳章時發表的演說〈後共產主義的噩夢〉(The Post-Communist Nightmare)一文,寫了一封很長的公開信,質疑作為總統的哈維爾在這篇演講中提出的許多見解。為此,哈維爾寫了回覆的公開信,並在信中邀請布羅茨 基經由直接見面,深入探討。
1999 年夏天,我到作為總統府的布拉格城堡拜訪哈維爾,在訪談時,我特別詢問哈維爾,在他們當年那場公開論爭後,他是否和布羅茨基見了面,並一起坐下來深入探討 過他們顯然有著明顯分歧的觀點。哈維爾沉吟了一下,告訴我,他還沒有機會和布羅茨基見面交談。看得出來,他對我會關注那場論爭頗感訝異。
我看著哈維爾,哈維爾則看著正緊張地不知怎麼應付「老闆」的兩位助理,哈維爾的目光嚴峻,顯然,他對助手們未能及時告知布羅茨基逝世的消息頗為惱火。可這 兩位只知道政治世界的助理,一臉窘困,面面相覷,因為他們不僅不知道布羅茨基是誰,甚至搞不清楚「老闆」究竟和布羅茨基發生了什麼!在那已然僵住的氛圍 中,哈維爾不得不用捷克語向他們解釋我們這一對話的來龍去脈。我看出哈維爾的窘迫,我不僅觸及了一個敏感、微妙的話題,而且將一個噩耗帶給了他。
從1989年底到1999年那十年,哈維爾所經歷的幾乎都是政治。1996年一月,他那位深受人民愛戴的妻子奧爾嘉(Olga Splichalov, 1933-1996)因患癌症逝世了。同時,他還要和他的政治對手、前總理克勞斯進行對於捷克未來的重大辯論。也許,他真的無暇關注文學世界裡發生的一 切。況且,奧爾嘉竟是和布羅茨基同年同月過世的。
布羅茨基是一位真正的文學天才,他在十四歲那年就厭倦了制式化的學校教育,從中學退學,之後便再也沒有去上學讀書。他是一位天性驕傲、專和統治者作對的倔 頭。他痛恨謊言,也好修理世上那些自以為是的得勢者。他對文學有著絕對的標準,並將詩視為人類良知最後的庇蔭。他早年的詩作哀婉,孤立卓絕,沒有一絲雜 音。1996年一月的某個深夜,他因心臟病突發,在已定居近二十年的紐約布魯克林區逝世。那一年,他才五十六歲。
在〈後共產主義的噩夢〉這篇演說一開頭,哈維爾說了一個發人深省的小故事,他說:「記得曾有一段時間,我的朋友和故舊總會在街上避開我,雖然我自己從未那 樣想過,但他們在某種意義上把我看成他們的良心,如果停下來和我交談,就會感到不得不為自己沒有去反抗那個政權而道歉,要嘛,就要向我解釋為什麼他們沒有 那樣去做,抑或是以宣稱反抗無論如何也無濟於事來為自己辯護。對警察可能跟蹤我的恐懼是造成這種情況的另一個原因,和我交談會使他們的處境變得複雜。與其 如此,不如就不走近我。這樣既可以省去不愉快的對話,同時也避免了可能隨之而來的迫害。
正是這個小故事,和哈維爾推導出來的結論,觸動了敏銳的布羅茨基,看得出來,布羅茨基已對哈維爾關注多年,他讀出了這篇演講裡有著某種政治家或政客慣用 的、帶著取悅大眾味道的「寬宏大量」。布羅茨基當即寫下一封洋洋灑灑、誠懇但不乏譏誚的公開信,那是一封不僅寫給總統,也是寫給作家同行,甚至是寫給同在 極權制度下坐牢的獄友哈維爾的信,布羅茨基寫道:「在我看來,總統先生,你那出名的禮貌,在這裡,似乎沒有為你的事後聰明帶來多少益處,你真的敢肯定人們 當時迴避你,僅僅是因為出於尷尬和擔憂──潛在的迫害,而不是因為他們想到那個制度表面上的穩定而瞧不起你?你真的敢肯定他們之中沒有人把你當成一個被監 視的、厄運將臨的人,在這樣一個人身上浪費太多時間是愚蠢的嗎?……難道你沒有想像過他們在黃昏時分對他們的妻子說:『我今天在街上看到哈維爾。這下夠他 受的了。』抑或,難道是我誤解了捷克人的個性?」
哈維爾一讀到《紐約書評》轉寄來的布羅茨基的公開信後,立即在《紐約書評》上向布羅茨基回覆了一封短信,信中亦不乏反唇相譏。他說:「由於你的道德力量和 才能,你和其他相對來說僅僅是一小批的作家,接下了俄羅斯十九世紀偉大詩人、小說家和評論家,以及少數幾個不可壓抑的藝術家的工作。你嚮往自由,而且你贏 得了。當你的親密或疏遠的朋友看到你為那種勝利付出代價而離開他們走向監獄,他們很有可能會說,他們一點也沒有感到正處於自由所帶來的不方便和危險中。說 不定他們還由此而獲得了某種見不得人的滿足哩。」
我理解哈維爾的遺憾,我從他們的討論中深受啟發,並由此引發了更多的思考。我相信,作為總統的哈維爾和作為劇作家、作為一個異議分子的哈維爾之間差異頗 大。對於怎樣看待人、人心和人性?作為作家的布羅茨基和已是總統的哈維爾看待問題的視角顯然不同。哈維爾本不是一個喜歡取悅大眾的人,但哈維爾寫這篇演講 時面對的恰恰是大眾,正如布羅茨基在公開信中所說:「有些事是隨著講壇而來的,不過我們應該抵制它……」作為總統的哈維爾顯然不可能將捷克人在專制時代的 墮落毫不留情地予以揭示。更不可能不留情面地用文字「拷問」那些當年躲著他的老熟人或認得他的布拉格市民。
而布羅茨基不是這樣,他昂著頭、目光犀利,甚至目中無人。但他無的是平庸,是那些缺乏節制、文字氾濫的作家,以及取悅大眾的政客。多年來,我始終無法忘記 他的那句名言︰「時間只能使邪惡升值。」就像1998年秋天,愛爾蘭詩人、1995年諾貝爾文學獎得主謝默斯‧奚尼(Seamus Heaney)對我談起布羅茨基時令我動容的說法:「我真的很懷念他。當你在約瑟夫‧布羅茨基面前,首先你感到你是在接近一個能量的噴泉,其次是一個誠實 的噴泉。他從不害怕講真話。但你也是在一個傲慢的噴泉邊,但這不要緊,沒什麼。」
哈維爾戲劇性的一生確是傳奇。他成名頗早,三十多歲便已是獲得歐美戲劇界注目的捷克劇作家。1977年,他參與起草了具有歷史里程碑意義、也受到舉世注目 的捷克人權文獻《七七憲章》,並成為此一人權運動的發言人。他飽受共產黨政權的懲罰和摧殘,曾多次入獄。1989年十一月至十二月,他領導了捷克斯洛伐克 那場迫使共產黨交出政權、溫和如「天鵝絨」般的革命,在近百萬人民聚集在布拉格的溫斯萊斯廣場,在漫天飛舞的大雪中高喊︰「還給我們吧!政府」、「共產 黨,下台」的呼聲中,在近百萬人民的歡呼和叫喊:「哈維爾,哈維爾」、「哈維爾,當選」、「哈維爾,總統」中當選捷克斯洛伐克共和國總統及後來的捷克共和 國總統。所以,他在西方世界曾有著英雄、聖徒般的光環,被自己反諷地形容為︰「一個奉善良之命的男孩,以頭部撞擊一座被邪惡之王居住的城堡,直至城牆倒 塌,他自己即成了國王,進而英明統治了許多年。」的神話。
哈維爾尚未昏庸,也未喪失自我反省的能力。總統卸任前,哈維爾在紐約市立大學學生中心發表演說〈政治,再見!〉,他清醒地告訴世人:「這一切其實是命運對 我投下的殘酷陷阱。因為,我的確是在一夜之間被彈進神話世界,然後,在接下來回到地上的幾年中,更清楚了解到神話只是人類現實的投射,以及世界的構造絕對 不像神話那樣。於是,在從未嘗試成為神話國王,並發現自己確實在歷史的意外中被逼上這個位置之餘,我並未能免於從令人興奮的革命世界摔落到官僚例行公事的 痛苦。」

2012年4月23日 星期一

Mr Bloomberg: New York City in need of fearless leadership

New York City

Life after Bloomberg

A city in need of fearless leadership

With a great city comes great responsibility
Modern New York: The Life and Economics of a City. By Greg David. Palgrave Macmillan; 256 pages; $28 and £18.99. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

NEW YORK CITY’S current health, from its strong economy and pulsating civic culture to its low crime rates (Wall Street aside) and resilience against disaster, should not be taken for granted. Broke and almost ungovernable in the 1970s, Gotham’s renaissance was led by three remarkable mayors, Ed Koch (1978-89), Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) and the latest “hizzoner”, Michael Bloomberg, since 2002. Each has exercised a degree of executive power rare in most big cities, having managed the twin threats of a meddlesome state government in Albany and a sometimes truculent city council. Despite their differences, they have been united in their dogged promotion of economic prosperity though policies that often defy the instinctive wishes of what remains at heart a left-leaning union town.

Many expect a return to politics as usual when the third and final four-year term of the now not-very-popular Mr Bloomberg finishes in December 2013. The prospect either delights or depresses New Yorkers depending on where they are on the political spectrum.

This looming uncertainty is captured in “Modern New York”, Greg David’s fast-paced telling of the fall and rise of the Big Apple. Indicating both his politics and his concern, he ends his book warning that a return to old mayoral habits could result in an “economic and fiscal cataclysm”. Mr David, who has monitored the turnaround for three decades in various posts at Crain’s New York Business, a trade paper, is not an uncritical cheerleader for Messrs Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg (who he says has set some financial booby-traps for his successors). Still, he makes the case that they are vastly better than John Lindsay and Abe Beame, mayors who presided over the city’s decline, as well as David Dinkins, who dithered at the helm for a term between Mr Koch and Mr Giuliani.
Key to the turnaround was the assiduous courting of business, especially industries that create local wealth, such as tourism, media, property and especially finance. New York employs fewer people than it did in 1969, but those in work generate much more wealth, and with it the tax revenues to pay for the city’s massive budget. The fortunes of Wall Street in particular have influenced the city’s fate as a whole, not least through the taxes it pays. This was true after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, when Wall Street helped the city to bounce back stronger than ever. And it was the rapid revival of finance following the 2008 market meltdown and federal bail-out that softened New York’s most recent recession. Whereas across America 8.4m jobs—or 6% of all jobs—were lost in the 27-month “Great Recession”, New York City lost only 140,000 jobs, or 3.5% of its total, and its downturn lasted just 17 months. Yet Mr David worries that Wall Street’s initial strength may prove misleadingly optimistic, as it does not reflect new rules on higher capital requirements or the reforms introduced by Dodd-Frank, which threaten to curb risk-taking.
As Mr David points out, the three likeliest contenders to replace Mr Bloomberg—John Liu, Bill de Blasio and Christine Quinn, the current favourite—are all part of the city’s Democratic party establishment. If elected, they would each face pressure to address New York’s soaring inequality through more progressive taxation (which could drive wealth creators to the suburbs) and by getting firms to pay well more than the legal minimum wage. They might also bow to union pressure to block Walmart from entering the local market, flouting polls showing that two-thirds of the city want the retailer’s low prices.
As yet, no candidate has emerged to continue the Koch-Giuliani-Bloomberg tradition. Mr David has some nice things to say about Dan Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor to Mr Bloomberg, who now looks after his master’s business empire. But there is no sign as yet that he wants to run. There has been talk of Alec Baldwin throwing his hat into the ring, though it is not clear why an actor is the right man for the job. Is it really too late to grant Mr Bloomberg one more term?

Peter, Bruce Jacobs 家博

世煜兄寫昔日英雄(今日NGO服務) 我有緣數年前在陳文成基金會碰過此Peter 並與他共乘公車 聊聊天 他似乎有點發福
這個Peter啊,右手拔槍的動作一直都沒有進步;那麼,42年來,他有常常在夢裡喊著 Let me stand up like a Taiwanese嗎!http://blog.roodo.com/michaelcarolina/archives/19355368.html

澳洲學者家博︰選擇維持現狀 即選擇獨立
台北車站、捷運站步行60秒 淡水、九份民宿,士林、師大夜市住宿
〔記者李宇欣/台北報導〕澳洲墨爾本摩納希大學亞洲語言及研究中心教授家博(Bruce Jacobs)昨指出,台灣的未來應跳脫統獨的框架,若還停留在選擇統或獨,就是約束台灣的未來。
家 博表示,台灣當然是一個國家,而且還是一個民主國家,台灣人持中華民國護照可在世界各國行走,這就代表台灣的地位,這些國家未必與台灣有正式的外交關係, 但都承認中華民國護照,也就是承認台灣的存在;若台灣與中國出現爭端,美國和澳洲也會盡力保護、協助,這個機率高達九十%。

Professor of Asian Languages and Studies

Photo of Bruce Jacobs
J. Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, received his AB., MA and PhD degrees from Columbia University in the United States. He also studied as a postgraduate student in the History Research Institute of National Taiwan University and has been an Exchange Scholar and a Concurrent Professor at Nanjing University.
A specialist in Chinese and Taiwan politics and society, his publications include many books, journal articles and book chapters in Chinese and English.
On this page:

2012年4月18日 星期三

John of the Cross

Oxford Dictionary of Saints:

John of the Cross

John of the Cross (1542–91), Carmelite friar and virtual founder of the Discalced Carmelite friars. He was also one of Spain's foremost poets, mystics, and mystical theologians. Born of a noble but impoverished Toledan family, Juan de Yepes was brought up by his widowed mother, went to a poor-school at Medina del Campo, and was apprenticed to a silk-weaver. But he showed no aptitude for this trade, went to a Jesuit college, and joined the Carmelite Order in 1563; he studied theology at Salamanca and was ordained priest in 1567. At this time he thought of becoming a monk of the Carthusian Order, then flourishing. Instead he was persuaded by Theresa of Avila to join the Discalced Reform, which she had initiated for the nuns and which she had been authorized to make available for two houses of friars. One of these was the poverty-stricken house of Duruelo, where John began the reformed way of life. In 1571 he became rector of Alcala, a study house attached to the University, and from 1572 to 1577 confessor to the nuns of Avila, the mother-house of Theresa's reform.

But in 1575 he had been seized and imprisoned by the Calced Carmelite friars following a General Chapter in Piacenza, which both rejected the reform and refused to give its houses independence. The place of his confinement was Toledo, its conditions appalling, yet it was there that he wrote some of his finest poetry. He escaped after nine months; a little later the Discalced were separated from the Calced and in 1579 John founded a college at Baeza and was rector for three years. Prior at Granada from 1582 (the year of Theresa's death) and at Segovia from 1588, he suffered at the end of his life harsh treatment from Nicholas Doria, the Discalced Carmelites' vicar-general. He was deprived of his offices and banished to Ubeda, in the province of Andalusia, where he died in 1591. This bare recital of the external events of John's life gives no idea of the warmth of this wonderful mystic, so much admired by his disciples and by Theresa, yet also the victim of jealousy and power-politics during one of the most repressive periods of the Church's history.

A man of very small physical stature, John, as poet and mystic, is among the giants. What was rare about him was the combination of deep poetic sensitivity and articulateness with the rigorous thought-training of Thomist philosophy and theology. Written as commentaries on his poems, his spiritual works stress the need for active asceticism as well as the far deeper purification of the soul by divine grace and by the unsought humiliations of external agents. Through a life of pure faith and love of God, the soul eventually attains the deepest mystical union. John's writings are theologically substantial and that is why he is regarded not only as a mystic but also as a supreme Doctor of Mystical Theology. He was beatified in 1675, canonized in 1726, and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1926. The cult of John was not confined to his own Order, whose persecution reflects little credit on either branch of it, but has spread not only throughout the R.C. Church but also wherever the contemplative life is valued. Feast: 14 December.
Click here for a list of abbreviations used in this bibliography.
  • Lives by Bruno de Jésus-Marie, Saint Jean de la Croix (1929, revised 1961; Eng. tr. 1932) and Crisogono de Jesus (revised by Matias del Nino Jesus, 1964); E. A. Peers, Handbook to the Life and Times of St. Theresa and St. John of the Cross (1954); A Benedictine of Stanbrook, The Mediaeval Mystical Tradition and St. John of the Cross (1954); E. A. Peers, Studies of the Spanish Mystics (2nd edn. 1951), pp 227–88. Works of St. John of the Cross, ed. Silverio de Santa Teresa (1929–31) and Luciano del SS. Sacramento (1946); English translations by E. A. Peers (3 vols., revised edn. 1953) and K. Kavanaugh and O. Rodriguez (1966). Poems translated by Roy Campbell (1951) and K. Jones (1994). See also J. Baruzi, Saint Jean de la Croix et le problème de l'expérience mystique (2nd edn. 1931) and E. W. T. Dicken, The Crucible of Love (1963)


"Abide in peace, banish cares, take no account of all that happens, and you will serve God according to his good pleasure and rest in him."

"Love consists not in feeling great things but in having great detachment and in suffering for the Beloved."

"In the evening of life, we will be judged on love alone."

"Take God for your spouse and friend and walk with him continually, and you will not sin and will learn to love, and the things you must do will work out prosperously for you."

"It is great wisdom to know how to be silent and to look at neither the remarks, nor the deeds, nor the lives of others."

"If you purify your soul of attachment to and desire for things, you will understand them spiritually. If you deny your appetite for them, you will enjoy their truth, understanding what is certain in them."

2012年4月17日 星期二



10:30 家祭
11:20 公祭


  由於人的軀殼如同機器,會變壞和消失,而人的記憶體如同壓縮儲存的資料。心定和尚說,人的記憶體如同錄音、錄影,一生所有的行為都壓縮在記憶 體裡面,一個人生前行為的好壞,決定下一世生命的去處。花草樹木經由陽光和水的灌溉,也能枝葉茂密。而陳教授生前為國家的奉獻,必定往生西方極樂世界。


作        者:陳文哲
出  版  社:鼎茂出版社
版        本:3版

2012年4月11日 星期三

Senior British police officer Ali Dizaei

 Ali Dizaei 原籍伊朗

bbc 的 hardtalk訪談

Dizaei: My police career not over

Senior British police officer Ali Dizaei insists his police career is not over despite being convicted and sent to jail for misconduct.

2012年4月7日 星期六

Claude Levi-Strauss氏死去,享年100岁。

Claude Lévi-Strauss obituary

French anthropologist whose analysis of kinship and myth gave rise to structuralism as an intellectual force
French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (n1908) in Amazonia in Brazil c. 1936
Lévi-Strauss, above, in 1936 in Brazilian Amazonia, where he undertook fieldwork, and below at the Collège de France, in Paris, in 2001. Photograph: Apic/Getty Images
The fame of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who has died aged 100, extended well beyond his own subject of anthropology. He was without doubt the anthropologist best known to non-specialists. This is mainly because he is usually considered to be the founder of the intellectual movement known as structuralism, which was to have such influence, especially in the 1970s. He was one of those French intellectuals – like Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida and Paul Ricoeur – whose influence spread to many other disciplines because they were philosophers in a much broader sense of the word than the academic philosophers of the British and American tradition.
As a result, these French writers have seemed more stimulating to some Anglo-Saxon thinkers, working in intellectually more imaginative, but perhaps less rigorous, areas such as literature, history or sociology than the home-grown product. Yet it is something of an irony that Lévi-Strauss should have been thought of in this way, as he considered himself, above all, a technical anthropologist, and he was a little surprised, if not also a little suspicious, of the enthusiasm for structuralism manifested by students of literature and others. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that he relished the literary fame that his work acquired, especially for his 1955 book Tristes Tropiques.
Lévi-Strauss was born in Brussels into a family of French artists, and followed a fairly typical career for a successful French humanities student. He attended the Lycée Janson de Sailly in Paris, and then the Sorbonne, where in 1928, at an exceptionally early age and with great success, he passed the formidable philosophy agrégation examination. He consequently became a kind of high-level school teacher in Laon, in Picardy, a type of post that was often a first step towards becoming a university teacher.
He soon became disillusioned with philosophy, however, because of what he saw as its sterile self-reference and mannerisms. He especially disliked the utilitarian and moralistic forms of philosophy dominant in France at the time. For a while he also became active in the French socialist movement but, subsequently, he seems to have lost interest in politics and was surprisingly uncommitted during the dramatic events of postwar France. Instead he became interested in anthropology, after reading the American anthropologist Robert Lowie, partly because he realised that the richness of the cultures then labelled as primitive gave the lie to the optimistic evolutionism of writers such as Auguste Comte.
As a result of this interest in anthropology he was proposed by the sociologist Célestin Bouglé as a member of a group of French academics who were being seconded to the new French-sponsored University of São Paulo in Brazil. He accepted a professorship in 1935, largely in the mistaken belief that he would be able to study the Amerindians. He did attempt to carry out a certain amount of anthropological research from there, but it was difficult, and in 1939 he resigned from the post to carry out more systematic fieldwork among the Nambikwara and other indigenous peoples of the Mato Grosso and Brazilian Amazon. Although this field work has always been considered to be rather poor by many anthropologists, I find it rather impressive given the short time he spent with the Amerindians. More importantly it confirmed him in his sympathy and respect for the culture of the indigenous peoples of South America and also in his growing scepticism towards the philosophical and artistic achievements of the literate civilisations of the Old World.
This attitude must have been confirmed by the events of the second world war. First, Lévi-Strauss was called up for a very short time and experienced the humiliation of the fall of France and the armistice, and then he was faced by the growing discrimination and persecution against Jews in Vichy France. In 1941, he managed to escape and ultimately made his way to New York, where, the next year, together with other French intellectuals, he was given a post at the New School for Social Research. There, he, the theologian Jacques Maritain and others founded a kind of Free French university, the École Libre des Hautes Études. After the war he stayed on in the US until 1948, working as cultural attaché to the French embassy in Washington. On his return to France, he held a number of increasingly important posts at institutions, including the Museé de l'Homme in Paris, where he served as assistant director (1949-50), and the École Pratique des Hautes Études, where he was director of studies in anthropology (1950-74). In 1959 he was elected to a chair of social anthropology at the Collège de France. Among many other honours he was, in 1973, awarded the Erasmus prize and elected to the French Academy.
It was during Lévi-Strauss's period in the US that "structural anthropology" became constructed. This led to what has come to be known as "structuralism" – a term used for a variety of theories both in anthropology and beyond, which, although they claim to be derived from his ideas, do not always bear much relation to his work. It is striking how, in spite of the immense respect with which he is treated, especially in France, he has no direct followers or students. Many claim and have claimed to be structuralists but it usually turns out that only a limited aspect of his thought has an influence on them, and at worst the adoption of the label "structuralist" was merely a matter of passing fashion. He is a lonely, if imposing, figure in the history of thought.
Levi-Strauss's own structuralism is a personal amalgam of a naturalist approach to the study of human beings and a philosophical attitude derived from this. The strictly scientific aspect was largely the result of the combination of two types of theoretical influences. The first has to do with his contact with American cultural anthropology, a relation that is ambiguous since it is so much "at a distance", as was to be his attitude to all other contemporary theoretical influences. Secondly, he came into contact with structural linguistics, a behaviouristic amalgam of European and American theories, and particularly the more imaginative work of Roman Jacobson, the Russian theoretician of language who was also at the New School at the time.
While in New York, Lévi-Strauss immersed himself in the great body of anthropological accounts of North and South Amerindians that early US anthropologists and linguists had been accumulating for more than a century. The data collected from the Amerindians and its complexity delighted him, and made him react permanently against reductionist explanations of culture, which implicitly denied the intellectual achievement that indigenous mythology and social thought represented. The contact with the structural linguists suggested to him an approach that could both generalise and remain true to the richness and specificity of the original material. Thus Levi-Strauss adopted the term "structural" from a very particular school of linguistics that flourished in the 1940s and 50s, which combined the influence of the Swiss, Ferdinand de Saussure, with that of the American Leonard Bloomfield.
The basis of the structural anthropology of Lévi-Strauss is the idea that the human brain systematically processes organised, that is to say structured, units of information that combine and recombine to create models that sometimes explain the world we live in, sometimes suggest imaginary alternatives, and sometimes give tools with which to operate in it. The task of the anthropologist, for Lévi-Strauss, is not to account for why a culture takes a particular form, but to understand and illustrate the principles of organisation that underlie the onward process of transformation that occurs as carriers of the culture solve problems that are either practical or purely intellectual.
For him anthropology was scientific and naturalistic, that is scientific in the way that structural linguistics had become scientific. By looking at the transformations of language that occur as new utterances are generated, by using the tools that a particular language makes available, structural linguistics was able, so Lévi-Strauss believed, to understand not only the irreducible specificities of a particular language, but also the principles that made their production possible. In this way, linguistics, as he understood it, was a branch of the humanities and a natural science that is able to connect directly with psychology and neurology.
By studying the richness of cultural forms and their continued transformations, much the same was to be achieved by anthropology, which was to be both a cognitive and a historical science. Thus, the meaning of symbols and concepts had to be studied both within the context of the working of the brain and the specificity of the historical flow of a particular culture. Anthropology was for Lévi-Strauss one of the cognitive sciences. It was to be compatible with recent discoveries concerning the working of the brain, although as time went on he seems to have given up keeping up with developments in this field. He was, however, insistent that although the cognitive could explain structure, it could not explain content.
This is the programme lying behind all of Lévi-Strauss's major works. But, in a sense, it is also a manifestation of a much more fundamental approach and mood from modern English-speaking anthropologists. In contrast to most professional anthropologists, whose work often seems contained within the controversies of their time and which lacks a general theory of human nature, Lévi-Strauss writes as though he were a naturalist from far away, observing our planet and the ecology of its different species, including the human species, with an Olympian lack of involvement.
He was thus interested in the human species in general terms but, because he knew that for 99% of its existence, humankind has consisted of small groups with very low population densities living in close interaction with a multitude of other living species, he considered the study of peoples such as the pre-contact Amazonian Indians to be far more important and relevant than the details of the short-lived modern industrialised world.
This approach led him to pay particular attention to Amerindian myths, the study of which was the subject of most of his writing since the 1960s. In particular, it is the subject of the four-volume Mythologiques (1964-71). For Lévi-Strauss, Amerindian myths are the Indian's speculation on the condition of interdependence of living things. Thus a myth about the origins of wild pigs is related to marriage rules and to another myth about the benefits of cooking.
Claude Lévi-Strauss Lévi-Strauss at the Collège de France in 2001. Photograph: Joel Robine/AFP/Getty Images This is, for him, a speculation not so much utilitarian as philosophical. Human thought is, of course, governed by the structuring capacity of the human brain but not explained by it. In this light, the myths are the record of the true history of the principal philosophical endeavour of mankind, and Lévi-Strauss not only wanted to record this endeavour, but also to join it. The myths' subject matter is his subject matter. Thus, this most aloof of intellectuals saw himself as a participant in the Amerindian dialogues he analysed without claiming any kind of precedence for himself. Because the myths are about the interrelationship of living things, it is essential for him to understand the natural history of all species in order to understand our own natural history.
Understanding, or participating, in the ecological reflection of humans such as the Amerindians is not only what he considered most important to study for himself as an anthropologist: it also coloured his values. These, from time to time, particularly towards the end of his life, he allowed himself to make public. He repeatedly expressed his distaste for the narrowness and sterility of much post-neolithic thought, and its obsession with the exploitation of other living things rather than simply reflecting on the latter's complexity and mutual relationships. As a result, he became something of a hero to certain modern ecological ideologues. For Lévi-Strauss, writing and formal education are just as likely to lead to philosophical impoverishment as to anything else.
There is also another, even more fundamental, way in which his thought seeks to rejoin that of the mythology of the Amerindians as he understands it to be. Myths have no authors. Their creation occurs imperceptibly in the process of transmission or transformation over hundreds of years and across hundreds of miles. The individual subject, the self-obsessed innovator or artist so dear to much western philosophy, had, therefore, no place for Lévi-Strauss, and indeed repelled him. He saw the glorification of individual creativity as an illusion. As he wrote in Tristes Tropiques: "the I is hateful". This perspective is particularly evident in his study of Amerindian art. This art did not involve the great individualistic self-displays of western art that he abhorred. The Amerindian artist, by contrast, tried to reproduce what others had done and, if he was innovating, he was unaware of the fact. Throughout Lévi-Strauss's work there is a clear aesthetic preference for a creativity that is distributed throughout a population and that does not wear its emotions on its sleeve.
This central philosophical tenet of his approach has often been forgotten, partly because of some subsequent writers, such as Foucault or Derrida, who although they acknowledged his influence, were bizarrely labelled as post-structuralists, as though they differed from him in this respect. They were then credited with the idea of the "death of the subject" while, in this, they simply followed in his footsteps. Yet, the philosophical implications of this position not only implicitly underlay so much of his thought, but were made quite explicit in the polemic against Sartre's glorification of individual choice, which forms the final part of Lévi-Strauss's most adventurous book, The Savage Mind (1962).
Of course, his theories have been much criticised, and few would now subscribe to them in the way that they were originally formulated, but nonetheless many anthropologists, including myself, are continually amazed and awed by the fact that, through the use of a theory that many consider flawed, or at least rather vague, Lévi-Strauss gained the most illuminating and unexpected insights in almost all fields of social and cultural anthropology.
Given his personality and, indeed, his theories, the extraordinary lionisation he received on the occasion of his 100th birthday seems ironic. It was as if the French establishment and the French state had decided that he was suddenly a major diplomatic asset. He had received drawers full of medals and prizes from all over the world and, as the international fame of its public intellectuals is the kind of thing France has always prided itself on, it made sure the birthday did not go unnoticed. Lévi-Strauss had become the last survivor of these great beasts such as Sartre, Foucault and the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and, what was more, he was politically uncontroversial. Also, the genuine interest of the previous French president Jacques Chirac in the culture of native peoples and in the acquisition of "primitive art" encouraged this apotheosis of a person who, for the general French public represented, above all, the lure of primitive exoticism.
So, when the great date came, nearly every French magazine had his photo on the cover. President Sarkozy went to his flat to wish him a happy birthday, and the ministry of foreign affairs helped to finance seminars in his honour in places as far apart as Iceland and India. The imposing amphitheatre of the newly created collection of indigenous art at the Quai Branly museum, in Paris, was named after him. Most significant of all, a large part of his work was republished in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. This honour is normally reserved for dead greats such as Racine or Aristotle, whose writings are thereby placed in a kind of leather-bound bibliophilic mausoleum and printed on paper normally only used for bibles.
This treatment is significant because, as Vincent Debaene points out in a cheeky introduction to the volume, France much prefers to represent its scientists and thinkers as great literary figures, rather than celebrate what they said or discovered.
And indeed all this adulation hardly considered seriously the core of Levi-Strauss's work, the groundbreaking analysis of kinship systems that he published on his return to France in 1947 as The Elementary Structures of Kinship, consisting of a detailed study of those societies where family ties determine who people must marry, or the minute examinations of North and South American myth. All these public tributes seem to obscure his prime identity as a professional anthropologist struggling with the basic traditional questions of the discipline.
We do not know what he thought of all this, since by then he felt too ill to respond, but his often-expressed preference for the anonymous creator, which seems to accord so well with his personality, does not square with all this fuss. He hated public occasions and was a very private person. He loved to be out of step with the received "correct" view of the moment. He was uncomfortable with disciples and fled from adulation.
To the members of his team in Paris, the image he evoked above all was the nearly permanently closed doors of his study. This is not to say that he was in any way a recluse. He was secretly warm and had a delightful sense of humour. He was charming and very considerate and respectful towards whoever he was dealing with, irrespective of status. I remember him at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, on the occasion of his being given an honorary degree, listening to students telling him about what they got from his work and not allowing them to be interrupted by the French ambassador, who failed in the attempt to barge in and drag him away in the direction of more important guests. The nearest he approached discourtesy was a faint hint of irony, but on the whole he preferred to be alone, working, reading and accumulating ever more details about the lives of the native Americans whom he so admired.
He married Dina Dreyfus in 1932, Rose Marie Ullmo in 1946, and Monique Roman in 1954, and had a son by each of his second and third wives - Laurent and Matthieu. He is survived by Monique and his sons.

• Claude Lévi-Strauss, anthropologist, born 28 November 1908; died 30 October 2009

文化社會| 2009.11.05
“結構主義大師列維 - 斯特勞斯逝世

文化社会 | 2009.11.05


Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 1967年的列维-斯特劳斯


列维-斯特劳斯作为语言学家对学术界产生了巨大影响Bildunterschrift: 列维-斯特劳斯作为语言学家对学术界产生了巨大影响
列維-斯特勞斯在所謂的原始社會形態中觀察到一些在西方文明社會同樣適用的原則。例如禁止亂倫,或對相反事物的歸納-"冷與熱"、"好與壞"的區分存在於任何一個社會中,這就是列維-斯特勞斯所稱的"思維的普世原則" 從這一點來看,現代人和原始人比人們所認為的要接近得多。
孜孜不倦的治學活動似乎有利於益壽延年。 11月3日列維-斯特勞斯在巴黎去世時,享年100歲。
作者:Kersten Knipp/叶宣

死去」の Google ブログ アラート
「構造主義」のレヴィストロース氏死去、100歳 写真5枚 国際ニュース ...
【11月4日 AFP】フランスの文化人類学者で思想家のクロード・レヴィストロース(Claude Levi-Strauss)氏が死去した。100歳だった。出版社や同僚らが3日明らかにした。 レヴ……
AFPBB News - 総合新着記事100 - - http://www.afpbb.com/
東京エスノ:【訃報】「悲しき熱帯」レビストロース氏死去 「構造主義の ...
By video_news
20世紀を代表する思想家で文化人類学者のクロード・レビストロース氏が死去したと、AFP通信が3日、出版社の情報として伝えた。100歳。今月28日には101歳の誕生日を迎えるはずだった。 同氏はパリ在住。メディアにはほとんど出ないが、健康 ...
東京エスノ - http://blog.livedoor.jp/video_news/
SELF.com vlog: 「構造主義」のレヴィストロース氏死去、100歳
By シュウ
「構造主義」のレヴィストロース氏死去、100歳. 構造主義の終焉・・・. ストロース氏は、ヨーロッパで文明批判をしていましたね。 実存主義やマルクス主義の次に出てきたのが構造主義で、哲学で世の中を変える・・・という風潮が当時、まだあったようです ...
SELF.com vlog - http://cafe-de-essay.blog.ocn.ne.jp/blog/
訃報:レビストロース氏死去 構造主義の巨人 - おもてなしの空間
By amt
フランス紙ルモンド(電子版)が3日伝えたところによると、現代フランスを代表する思想家で社会人類学者のクロード・レビストロース氏が、死去した。100歳。10月31日から11月1日にかけての夜に死去したという。死因など詳しい状況は不明。 ...
おもてなしの空間 - http://d.hatena.ne.jp/amt/
レビストロース(Claude Levi-Strauss)氏、死去 - finalventの日記
By finalvent
レビストロース(Claude Levi-Strauss)氏、死去. ⇒訃報:レビストロース氏死去 構造主義の巨人 - 毎日jp(毎日新聞). 表記が最近変わったのかな。 ⇒クロード・レヴィ=ストロース - Wikipedia · ウィキペディアを読んでもよくわからないな。 ...
finalventの日記 - http://d.hatena.ne.jp/finalvent/
死去」の Google ウェブ アラート
asahicom朝日新聞社悲しき熱帯レビストロース氏死去構造主義の父 ...
思想家のレビストロース氏が死去 - goo ニュース
2009年11月4日 ... goo ライフニュース。【パリ時事】20世紀を代表するフランスの文化人類学者・思想家 で、西洋中心型の近代的思考法を内側から批判する「構造主義」を発展させ、「悲しき 熱帯」「野生の思考」などの著作で知られるクロード・ ...



1908年、ユダヤ系フランス人を両親にベルギーで生まれる。パリ大学で哲学を学ぶ。アマゾンをはじめ、南米やアジアなど世界各国でフィールド ワークを重ね、数多くの民族を研究。原初の時代は自然状態にあった人間だが、結婚が氏族間で行われるようになって社会が形成されたとし、見えない「構造」 が社会や文化を決定すると説き、「構造主義の祖」と呼ばれた。
西欧が「未開」と見下す社会にも、文明社会同様の構造があり、人間は社会に則した論理に基づいて行動していると主張し、西欧の人間主義を批判し た。実存主義哲学者サルトルとの論争は特に有名。59年、仏最高の研究教育機関コレージュ・ド・フランス教授就任。73年、仏学士院会員。
(2009年11月4日12時43分 読売新聞)

Virginia Rometty, Scott Thompson

 Virginia Rometty 是ibm公司新任女CEO

GOLF IBM CEO Rometty to Attend Masters
Augusta National has offered membership to a number of IBM's chiefs, but it's unclear if Virginia Rometty received one. She said she will attend the Masters.
• Leaderboard: Who's Ahead

IBM's Rometty was at Masters, in a pink jacket
By Chris O'Meara, AP IBM CEO Virginia Rometty watches the final round of the Masters golf tournament from the gallery on the 18th green. By Chris O'Meara, AP IBM CEO Virginia Rometty watches the final round of the Masters golf tournament from the ...

IBM Executive Just Another Face in the Crowd
New York Times
Virginia Rometty, the IBM chief executive, was seen on the club's grounds Sunday and is believed to have entertained clients at the club Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Rometty was not wearing a green jacket, which is the traditional attire of club ...
New IBM chief makes an appearance at Augusta National, but she's in pink ...
Washington Post
New IBM chief Virginia Rometty was at the Masters after all. In a pink jacket, however, not a green one. Rometty, sitting in a lawn chair, had a prime location just a few rows behind the 18th green. She is known to be an avid scuba diver, ...
Gender Debate Simmers as Augusta National, IBM Try to Keep Focus on Golf
Wall Street Journal
Augusta has offered membership to the past four IBM CEOs, but because of its all-male policy, it is unclear if an invitation has been extended to Ms. Rometty. IBM and the club wouldn't say whether she had been invited to join. "My question is, does she ...

A day after delivering news of job cuts, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson emailed his staff Thursday to reassure employees about the company’s strategy.
Here’s a copy of the memo reviewed by WSJ:

Yahoos –
This was a tough week. Thank you all for supporting each other through a difficult time.
As hard as big changes like this can be, I was encouraged to hear support from so many of you who really understand our need to operate differently.  That said, I also know many of you still have a lot of questions about where we’re headed and how fast we can get there. I shared a few thoughts in my note earlier this week and you’ll hear more at our All Hands next week.
We deliberately separated this week’s employee action from next week’s discussion of our strategy. The reason was simple:  we felt it was only fair and respectful to those who are leaving and transitioning to take care of each of them before turning to our future.
Starting next week we will begin looking forward and our All Hands is just the beginning.  You’ll be hearing a lot more from me and other leaders about our comprehensive plans for Yahoo!’s future. The immediate next step for all of us is to get clear on our goals, and then take action and move.
There’s a lot to do and that’s why I can’t stress enough that we all need to focus on getting stuff done. Getting stuff done is short hand for eliminating bureaucracy and barriers so we can all innovate as fast as our customers and the industry require. That’s pretty fast.
Our users want fun, informative, engaging experiences on all screens that they feel were designed just for them.  Advertisers want it to be much easier to work with us and they want measurable ROI on their spending.  We can do all that.  But we won’t win by talking about the opportunity.  We’ll win by putting our customers first, creating high-quality experiences, and iterating on them quickly. Great user and advertiser experiences are what will ignite excitement around our brand and get us growing again.
You’ll receive the official invite to our All Hands shortly and we want to know what’s on your mind in advance.  If you have questions before we meet next week, please check Backyard for information and answers to your questions. If you don’t see the answers, please post questions on Backyard, or you can email questions directly to the leadership team.
We can do this. We will do this!  One thing I’ve heard repeatedly since I got here is that everyone wants to win again. There is so much passion for Yahoo! – for what it was and for what we all believe it can be. Even after all you’ve been through, there’s a hard core crew of Yahoos who believe in this company and in its ability to thrive. I have seen big turnarounds before, and this company has the foundation, the spirit, the backbone, and the creativity to get it done.
Personally, I can’t wait to get moving.