Wednesday, December 27, 2006
工作要认真,态度要谦和
今天我对面的gg被头儿骂了,这GG于是一上午都用公司的电话跟一个朋友发牢骚,第一次领教了一个男人话这么多。我不太认同这种态度,人只有有积极学习、努力的心态才能进步,不应该抱怨,更不能在工作时间用公司电脑抱怨。每一个进步,是要靠自己的努力的,不然只会饿死。工作了这么久,也不知道头儿对我的看法是什么,snow这个人很活泼,但是只跟他说了一次话,怕怕。可能怕上司是一个通病吧,希望我能有继续实习的机会。
为昨晚在台南地震中的死难者默哀
其实,我是幸运的,海城在20多年没有很大的地震,只是没事儿小震下儿,我也只当是摇摇床,没有谁在地震中伤亡,据说只有东山农村的一只狗被破墙砸死了。台南地震,很多人失去家庭,失去亲人,失去事业,我的心里说不出的痛,同时也在上帝那为他们祈祷,希望他们生活早日回归正常,找回自己的幸福。
哦,今天还是有一件高兴的事要说的,我那个出版专业资格考试过了,但是很险
科目 分数 合格标准 合格与否
出版专业基础知识(初级) 101 100 合格
出版专业理论与实务(初级) 112 110 合格
谢谢上帝,也谢谢关心帮助我的人们。活着就是一种幸福
Sunday, December 24, 2006
硕博词(转自才女张新)
东西外企疑无路,南北国企人也多。忍看私企门不入,笑闻牛人进院所。
无头苍蝇空扑翼,丧家之犬进油锅。一骑红尘心暗笑,错把据信当offer
汗透重衣梦难醒,一进一退失所措。自思年年求学事,无花无酒亦无歌。
红袖冥冥无觅处,象牙塔中难造车。两处茫茫皆不见,四面碰壁无逃脱。
未经悬梁刺股痛,悔把岁月空蹉跎。今朝有梦今朝作,莫待无梦呼奈何。
三年硕士五年博,身变皮骨腰变驮。昨日豪情遭磨难,今朝两鬓见斑驳。
囊中通货常恨少,腹内草莽日渐多。墙上芦苇浅根底,山间竹笋空外壳。
有心飘洋求深造,无奈拦路有G 托。终日昏昏书中死,彻夜迷迷网上活。
人依电脑哥俩个,情寄足球心一颗。偶有红袖添香事,南柯梦醒愁更多。
不毛之地空求雨,梧桐树矮愧凤落。寄言诸位同窗友,莫效小子这般活。
轻浮小舟难下海,空虚岁月易蹉跎。此中言语皆肺腑,敬请大家细琢磨
the Christmas is at the corner
昨天本来打算看公务员考试的书的,可是在网上碰到了我最爱的美国学生,我们聊天聊了很久。他学社会学、心理学和摄影,在杜克的时候我跟他特别谈得来,跟他说起了《暗恋桃花源》,他很感兴趣。最近德国汉学家顾彬对中国现代作家群的评价引起了中国作家的骚动和群殴,不管是不是说中了中国作家的心病,这年头引起注意就算成功。我的这个学生则给了我一篇他写的关于中国女作家陈染的评论,还不错,没准这是将来的汉学家。希望他能更好地了解中国文化,了解中国作家
James Pangilinan
ALIT 233
“Breaking Out”: (of) Space, Time, and Ideas
The literature of Chen Ran has been deemed by many critics as experimental, feminist, exploratory of human nature and marginal psychological states (bianyuan xinli), avant-garde. Her works often are polysemous, multivocal, practicing their own multivalence, and open to external criticism from all sources- state, professional literary, academic, and moralist. Formally, her work reflects influences from western modernists such as Kafka and Woolf. Ideal-wise, her text’s thoughts draw from classical Chinese philosophy to Freud to contemporary critical theory, particularly feminist and gender theories. Needless to say, her works exhibit complexity and depth that play nicely to particular tastes but perplex many, critics and censures included.
This leaves the task of understanding her writings to critics of the moment who stay open to transnational, panhistoric trends. As a critic herself, she actively engages in discourses regarding her own work. Prominent in her critical project and literary work is her theory of gender-transcendent consciousness (chaoxingbie yishi), which she outlined in her 1994 talk in
Her definition… in fact straddles two distinct notions. One is the notion of transcending gender, which refers specifically to the ability to choose a partner of one’s own biological sex instead of being limited by the social imperative to procreate and hence, to choose a partner of the opposite sex. The other is the notion of a radical indifference to anatomical sex and social gender that downplays sex/gender altogether” (203).
For her, heterosexuality in its “always already” praxis and consciousness restricts the individual too greatly to the point of infelicitous disharmony, resulting from socialization’s production of negative normative masculinity. This latter premise leads her to idealize lesbianism for its offerings of “real communication” and “mutual understanding,” ideals often more significant than the “essential utilitarianism” of normative reproductive economies (203). In other words, what she values most greatly is love irrespective of sex or gender, just as she claims (her) art exists as and articulates.
In addition to her autocriticism, which grants insights to some extent, others have been busied by her writing. Wendy Larson has argues Chen Ran, while a professed writer in modernist traditions, still engages in contemporary postmodern literary discourses. This should come to no surprise upon considering that some of her masters such as Kafka and Borges, who wrote in experimental ways, as did Joyce, could be defined as antecedents and innovators in postmodernity. However, even accounting this, interpretation of their works as well as Chen Ran’s remain central to this claim. And looking at Chen’s case more closely, as Larson claims, her version merely fashions an awkward postmodernism (i.e., a Chinese simulacrum of western-originating postmodernity, where “Chinese culture still finds itself trapped in interpretations that impose on it older ideas of cultural essence and authenticity,” thereby making pure assimilation of that Other doctrine unfeasible). In practice, Chen’s work is “aware of the imported nature” and its consequent distance from totalization. Instead, it parades “before us semiparodic references to the contexts and paradigms of postmodernity, often to the point of absurdity” (Larson 213). Following suit, Chen creates narratives, which often include (quasi-) postmodern tropes and techniques, uniquely acknowledge and participate in the literary present.
“Breaking Open” offers a pivotal point in her oeuvre, because of its departure from her usual prior “intensely melancholic” thematics. As an exception it voices more optimism and ends more affirmatively, but like her other work this piece is equally experimental, actively pursuing of her theory, and awkwardly postmodern. While critics have commented on this particular story’s importance regarding gender-transcendent consciousness, they by this tendentious reading miss many of its highlights in form and ideas. In its special handling of space, time, and ideas, “Breaking Open” articulates in awkward postmodern fashion its author’s problematic theoretical vision, and thereby signifying more than even former interpretations.
A straight reading founded along lines of Chen’s gender-transcendent consciousness claims that the story’s couple of
In addition to the representational and its epistemological space, Chen’s text explores the diasporic sense of home- or homelessness. Of its many experimental features, its story space, neither solely representational nor transcendent, is composed as restricted and abstracted. Directly accountable, the female couple only occupies four physical spaces: the airport waiting room,
However, space does accrue significance, particularly in relation to historical narratives (discourses) and the postmodern present. The story’s formal exposition can be limited to the first few paragraphs. Space-wise, characterization of the airport’s waiting room immediately addresses the main couple’s alienation from the babble and crowd (i.e., their need for their own space), the prevalence of cross-gender dissatisfaction, socialization’s capitalist material basis, and a concept of time- to be returned to later. This room is revisited throughout the text, to the points of doubling, tripling… over its significances of dislocation and existential space’s uniformity, therefore space’s banality.
An important dichotomy between
Chen, through the narrator’s view, offers a surreal, postmodern perception of urban space. In order for her to experience the city of N, she must expose herself to the surges of frenetic energy, noise oppressively set in harmony by a “male rhythm that has become a public standard,” architecture in the extreme, white noise- or- in a word, a labyrinth of “contradictory feeling in which there is ambiguity and resistance at the same time” (70). As a result, she lacks deep feelings for her hometown. To her, N like its signifier is empty and could only be lived as a consumer experience: “It is a bottle of perfume, brand Love, stored away for the longest time, which, with increased age and experience, has completely lost its potency. It is a person waiting without hope” (61). Yet, against her better judgment, despite absence of feeling, she resolves, in facticity, to attempt to inhabit this superficial space by carving out their third space: “My mother is always awaiting for me with her door ajar. It is decreed by fate that I cannot sever my ties with this city” (71). Like in preceding narratives, the city becomes common signifier or discursive metaphor for explaining
Beyond the historical dichotomy of rural-urban space, this diasporic sense of home finds its greatest signifier in the airplane’s metaphoric space. In accordance with the early twentieth century modernizing discourse, this transportation technology and physical mechanism embodied
As traveling requires traversable space, it also assumes time expenditure and change. The plane not only invariably imposes an infinite, differential configuration of space but also it implies resetting temporal ordering, in a similar historical (or social) manner as well as existentially (or as an individual). Again the first paragraph offers pan-narrative input; besides purchasing amnesty, the crowd engages in a mad rush to board, in a manner that contrasts distinctively from the main couple (49). This first instance signals the variability of time. Three times exist in this passage: the crowd’s, the plane’s and the couple’s. As well as these, historical time, namely that of
Time is less philosophically dealt with throughout its narrative. Preoccupation with the historical present, with its urgency, and its potential- thematically set in the story’s exposition- combines with a consciousness of the relatively recent history through Chen’s frequent use of situational encountering. This technique, where the couple seek out or chance upon situations with implicit historical references or explicit allusion, enables her narrative to participate in generational, retrospective discourses, and this inscribed consciousness that usually includes critiques, thereby qualifying her writing as actively responsible. Concretely, one situation of this form is born out of the couple’s impulse to visit Zhazidong Prison, the place where Sister Jiang, an idealist fighter against the Nationalists, was incarcerated. This occasion that resonates deeply with nationalistic as well as state feminist sentiments is commented on as not just through a pure expositional account, rather the situation’s light is refracted through feminist concerns, spatio-temporal distance manifest as disgust, and the couple’s romantic cares; making the situation an encounter. In other words, both the discursive experience and immediate situation qualify the experiential totality. For example, they become befuddled by the question of justice:
“With all our acute intelligence, we could not grasp the dialectical relationship between human nature and justice. We could not understand how two words like ‘honorable’ and ‘ridiculous’…could now come within an inch of each other” (63).
What they question are the Maoist nationalistic narratives that before seized hold of Chinese citizenry but now must cope with the past. Those narratives, now discredited, perplex persons of the present; that is, personal narratives play into experiencing past narratives. Furthermore, they are reinscribed in these personal ones but in ways productive of a historical account. This strikes an (awkward) postmodern chord, where history no longer is a total account, rather it reads as a totalizing metanarrative, a representation framed by/in the situational circumstance.
Personal situational encountering reoccurs throughout “Breaking Open”; there are talks of qipaos, Mei Yanfeng and bodily skylines, Neil Armstrong, and President Nixon. This latter example offers another striking example of an awkward, playful postmodernity present in Chen’s writing. Humorous shock value is composed through withholdedly telling an anecdote about Nixon. First mention comes before the narrator’s expressed intention of creating “Breaking Open,” their women’s association, and continues after this brief but important diegetic information. Chen’s narration cuts back to this semihistorical turned personal account of her relation to a generation. Besides its comedy, what is interesting is Chen’s use of celebrity as point of departure for her addressing history. One receives the feeling that while not modernist in future orientation- “An old clock hangs on the wall. She [Yunnan] is reluctant as usual to wind it up, as if she did not believe in time and in the future”- an apprehension, and therefore critical distance, in perceiving the past exists (56). For her, which Chen executes through a shift to third-person narration, looking at the past, both with its oppressive childhood home setting and its revolutionary ideological excess, requires associative use of the present-day signifier of celebrity. Effectually, the meaning and value of the signified is lost to semiotic play: in sum, this use of surface replaces deep involvement with the past.
Engagement with the past, an ineluctable factor or a priori in all cultural production, manifests itself in the gender-transcendent dream sequence through its inclusion of Yunnan’s mother. A special relationship is shared between the narrator and this maternal figure. Regarding history, it maintains partial linear continuity by allowing an intimacy and exchange across generational gaps of experience. This bond, according to Sieber, furthermore produces and constitutes maternal approval between mother and daughter, thus dissolving any psychological hang-ups or complexes that posit conflicting interests (21). She also proposes that maternal wholehearted approval contrasts with former narratives’ aggrieved breaking of mother-daughter links experienced during the Republican period. The product of this emotionally, intellectually, historically reconstructed bond is gender transcendent female self-determination; mothers and daughters and lesbian lovers unite.
With maternal sanction, Chen’s concept of gender-transcendent consciousness is not yet fully a carving out from former of a new ideal, actual, temporal space. This (re)configured space finds again ample articulation in the airplane. In a comic compromise, reflecting a deferral of meaning and distance of idea systems (awkward postmodernism), the narrator invokes an ideal of gender illusion in relation to sexual difference:
“I am not using the restroom in the sky. Up there one is too close to God; earthly matters- regardless whether they concern us women or them men, especially everything connected to the sex organs- are best taken care of on the ground, because God has no sex, and we should not disturb such a being” (58).
Chen uses this to express her ideal of gender/sex difference erasure, or irrelevance. She continues when she discusses the Edenic myth of human origin. In the former, actual spatial elevation, mechanically enabled by the plane- a sort of existential metaphor- suggests the earthliness of sexual/gender difference. And in the latter, in the narrator’s reflection on origin as a representation, she denies reproductive economy, the procreation drive. Both in Christian and existentialist terms, this escape from the fall in the worldly (or) quotidian affords for self-determinacy/ salvation. These concurrent soundings, applied by Chen Ran, afford gender-transcendent consciousness.
As Sieber and Sang argue, this theory that Chen puts forth in her criticism and fiction, possesses its own theoretical limitations through irremediable self-contradiction. Simultaneous to advocating genderless love and downplaying of the social imperative to procreate she idealizes lesbian sexuality and love. In “Breaking Open” her characters frequently recall or meditate on masculinity, proffering negative examples, such as their assessments of murderous male poets, false male intellectuals, and -most facetiously- punctuation-mark-named dogs engaged in power contestation embodied in their romantic intrigue. As concomitant to this, idealization of their self-constructed space, love, and sisterhood, reiterated in their affirmations of love, is inscribed plentifully throughout the text’s body. Herein lies the paradox of Chen’s theory, as Sieber words it: “a desire to transcend gender difference and desire to imprint that transcendence with female specificity” (21). Additionally as problematic as this contradiction, Sang points out the theory’s “uneasy relation to the logic of transgenderism” (206). While her theorized consciousness claims the gender/sexual unimportance, this consciousness takes gender/sexual differences as always already identities, thus threatening more peripheral identities and neglecting variable genders and sexualities.
These criticisms cast gender-transcendent consciousness as contradictory, limited, and productive of its own issues. In the end, she must as in the story invoke, albeit attended with critiques, so-called universals or transcendent principles like love and humanity, which as she considers them are like art: apolitical or depoliticized. Following this reasoning, perpetuates the invocation of ideals, leading to questionable claims upon further questionable claims; in other words, leading to infinite regression, of sorts. If this is not the case, then in the least the author by offering her own theory merely contributes her own personal myth (ex, of love)[2] or vision to broader social and cultural discourses. This proposition conforms nicely with her avowed modernism, which as argued above, actually performs itself as engaged in and reflective of an awkward postmodernism.
In conclusion, Chen Ran’s “Breaking Open” truly works multivocally, multisemously, and multivalently within itself. To read it is to experience a representational play of space and time and ideas themselves. As experimentation it demands extended representational boundaries; boundaries that create, crush and cave in on themselves. In story form it mediates in an existentially timed manner on the very present historical moment, rife with its conflictions and ambiguities.
Works Cited
Chen, Ran. “Breaking Open.” Trans. Paola Zamperini. Red Is Not The Only Color Contemporary Chinese Fiction on Love and Sex between Women, Collected Stories. Ed. Patricia Sieber. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield pub., 2001. 49-71.
Chodorow, Nancy. “Heterosexuality as a Compromise Formation.” Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities. UP of Kentucky, 1994. Rpt. In Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell pub., 1998. 769-774.
Larson, Wendy. “Women and the Discourse of Desire in Postrevolutionary China: The Awkward Postmodernism of Chen Ran.” Boundary 2 24, no. 3 (fall 1997): 201-223.
Lauretis, Teresa de. “Technologies of Gender.” Rpt. In Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell pub., 1998. 713-721
Sang, Tze-lan D.. The Emerging Lesbian: Female Same-Sex Desire in Modern China. U of Chicago P., 2003. 163-174 & 200-222.
Sieber, Patricia. Introduction. Red Is Not The Only Color Contemporary Chinese Fiction on Love and Sex between Women, Collected Stories. Ed. Patricia Sieber. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 2001. 21-22.
Bibliography
Inwood, Michael. Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford UP, 1997.
[1] Germane to Chen’s usage: Kafka’s allegories and parables also feature spacelessness that makes them (seemingly) unbeholden to particulars while still proffering significance of both universal and larger specificity.
[2] This idea of “personal myth,” culturally producing and performing of usually compulsory heterosexuality but also sexualities in general, refers to an idea used in Chodorow’s “Heterosexuality as a Compromise Formation” (771).
Friday, December 22, 2006
博客?博士?
昨天被Vicky问起,能不能作一个AE,她说觉得硕士不一定愿意作很琐碎的事情。Indeed,我从来没把自己当个硕士,一切都从大学毕业小本开始,在PR领域,经验比学历更重要,我没有实践经验,我就要从最底层做起。这种想法是我在大学期间学生会工作学到的,要想进入更好的水平,要从基础做,看到实际存在的问题,才能在策略阶段有更好的Idea。
唉,工作依然很难找,尤其是硕士。还是作个博客,资源共享,思想共享的好。
----------------------------------------
我是一个网络游行侠,哪里有乐趣就到哪里去,世界就是我的家(这是麦克卢汉告诉我的,呵呵)
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
找呀找呀找工作
对了,今天,接到了蓝色光标的第三轮面试通知,听说还是群面,但是是终面,估计是5:1。熬了一个月,终于到了出结果的时候了,心里七上八下。不过能走到最后一轮面试,已经出乎意料了,毕竟跟我同面的人都是北大、人大、中国传媒的优秀人才。希望能进入蓝色光标,本土公关业的老大。
还有,最近电脑无数次中毒,让我深受折磨,真希望身边有一个电脑高手呀。我的工作是公关,不是网络安全,这样下去,我可以去公司做个IT了。
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
学术腐败要从娃娃抓起——21岁外企美女副总吴莹莹真相 (忠祥原创,必属佳品)转自天涯
真相如何呢?
从新闻报道中,我们大约可以知道,这个女生有“一百多项发明和三项国家专利”,在人民网的“2006年全国大学生年度人物评选”是这样介绍的: http://stu.people.com.cn/GB/65534/4736353.html
“北京师范大学心理学系的2003级学生吴莹莹同学,用她二十年的青春生命奏响了一曲动人的旋律。十五年的发明历程,她创造了一百项发明和三项国家专利;十二年的竞赛道路,她为师大实现了国际大学生程序设计竞赛历史上奖牌零的突破…”
“用十年的时间,吴莹莹同学在发明创造的路上,不停地向前迈步,然后取得了累累硕果。这些硕果是:100项发明。在吴莹莹同学的100项发明中,“OPEN书系快速检索装帧技术”、“速查字典及其检索方法”以及“动态计数印章”三项发明已经获得中国国家专利,同时还有更多的作品在不断完善和申请国家专利的过程中,一些作品已经开始申请国际专利。”
可以说,这“100多项发明和三项国家专利”就是吴莹莹造神运动的核心材料,这100多项发明都是什么呢?什么可以称作发明呢?我们小时候就试着尝试一些小手工艺品,风车,小桔灯,是否也可以称为发明呢?至于到底有多少“发明”我们无从考证,只能凭着吴莹莹一张嘴,说是啥就是啥了,不过在最近的一次搜狐访谈中,吴莹莹这样谈自己的“发明”: http://news.sohu.com/20061209/n246922261.shtml 我所有的发明都是源于生活” 主持人:那么在你做的这些多发明里面,你还记得你当时做第一个发明的时候,你是基于什么样的一种想法做了这样的发明? 吴莹莹:其实我觉得我所有的发明都是源于生活的,都是对于生活所得出的,像我的第一个发明,自吸水花盆非常的简单,小的时候跟我爷爷住在一起,爷爷就经常一早一晚拿着一个小水壶浇花。那个时候我问爷爷,为什么需要每天都这样浇花呢?爷爷告诉我,必须要一早一晚的浇,才会让它的土壤随时的保持湿润,然后我牢牢的记住了爷爷对我说的,要湿润,而且要随时湿润,然后我就想,可不可以用一种办法,能够自动的达到这样的效果,我爷爷就不用那么累去每天一早一晚的浇花了,然后那个时候正好在《十万个为什么》里面看到了一个有趣的小实验,《十万个为什么》就说,你拿一个脸盆,装满满的一盆水,在脸盆壁上搭一块毛巾,那个小小的毛巾就会把整整的一脸盆水引到外面去,那个时候我突然想到了爷爷花盆的灌溉,然后就想可不可以用类似的方法达到一个同样的效果。当时做了很多的实验,开始在旁边放了一杯水,之后经过多次改进,做成了这样的形式,里面一个小花盆,外面一个大花盆,两个花盆之间填满了水,通过一根线连结其他,这样的话就可以保持随时的湿润。’’ 哦,我们明白了,原来这就算是“发明”了,接下来吴莹莹开始大谈她的舞蹈事业,她的读书事业,再也不提所谓“一百项发明”了。 从“100项发明”难下结论,不过“国家专利”总有案可查吧?诸位不了解专利的可能不知道,什么人什么东西都可以申请专利,只要没有跟以前的专利重复,一个创意,一个想法,一个外观,都可以申请国家专利,只要交几百块钱申请费,我就是把我本科的毕业论文申请个专利也无不可。 在中国国家知识产权局专利检索“吴莹莹”作为专利人,我们得到如下结果,真是大开眼界: http://211.157.104.66/sipo/zljs/default.htm
序号 申请号 专利名称
1 00113090.0 字典检索方法及其速查字典
2 99233230.3 带钩的勺子
3 00223593.5 速查字典
4 01275751.9 洗衣、洗澡、洗碗水回收再利用装置
其中“带钩的勺子”是湖北省的一个吴莹莹的专利,“带钩的勺子系一种日常生活用品,由勺柄(1)、勺瓢(2)、勺钩(3)组成。勺柄(1)与勺瓢(2)固定连接成一个整体,勺钩(3)连接在勺柄(1)上。其优点突出,能方便地挂在碗口上,防止勺子滑落碗中,没入汤里,有利于清洁卫生。其结构简单,容易制造。” “ 洗衣、洗澡、洗碗水回收再利用装置”是北京海淀的一个吴莹莹的专利,我们可以认为并非我们所关注的吴莹莹。 所以,吴莹莹同学有案可查的专利,仅有两项“字典检索方法及其速查字典”,和“速查字典”,都是四川省成都市文庙西街106号的吴莹莹的专利。实际上仅能看作是一种专利,描述如下“摘要: 本发明属于一种字典的速查方法及其速查字典,特别是适合汉语字典和英语字典的应用,也适用于词典和带章节的教材、文献等。通过设置在字典侧面的更换码、字母标识和音节标识查找单字或词的第一和第二个字母确定单字或词在字典中的具体页码位置。采用本发明的字典检索方法及其速查字典不但能提高字典和文献的检索速度,而且字典不容易损坏,便于携带。“ 大家看明白了吧,其实就是一个小检索字符,用来查单词的第二个字母的页数的!所谓“OPEN书系快速检索装帧技术”、以及“动态计数印章”无案可查,也不知道是什么东西,这个字典检索专利申请时间是2000年,即吴莹莹在15岁的时候,而据称,这个OPEN书系专利曾“2004年获得第四届“挑战杯”全国大学生创业计划大赛金奖”。2000年的专利有记载,而2004年的却无记载?是不是很奇怪? “夺得第二十九届ACM 国际大学生程序设计竞赛亚洲总决赛银牌,实现了师大在国际大学生程序设计竞赛历史上奖牌零的突破”,更是奇哉怪也了,请看: http://www.sjtu.edu.cn/newsnet/newsdisplay.php?id=2971
29届ACM国际大学生程序设计大赛总决赛是上海交大一举夺冠, 上海交大主页总不会很无耻地窜改事实吧?“上海交通大学是唯一获得此项大赛冠军的来自亚洲的大学,而且今年是他们第二次夺冠。”参加比赛的复旦大学、北京大学、香港大学分列第6、11、12位,何来北师大? “当年11 月15 日,她当选ACM 亚洲助理主席,成为了第一个进入ACM主席团的中国人,继而应邀出席第三十届国际大学生程序设计竞赛世界总决赛及其最高首脑会议RCDS.”,哈哈,这就更荒唐了,ACM是跟IEEE齐名的学术机构,还没有中国籍教授能够进入主席团(美籍华人有),一个大三的小毛丫头,就可以进入ACM主席团,何况她的专业并非是计算机。事实真相在Topcoder主页说的很清楚了:
http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=pressroom&d2=pr_102506
" is a member of the American Psychology Association and the Association for Computing Machinery” ,member 的意思就不用说了吧,每个人交一年的年费几十美元就可以享有会员权利,收到会刊,看这帖的人说不定很多都是ACM会员或者IEEE会员。
总之,透过吹得天花乱坠的新闻稿,包括这个重头吹嘘的“2006年全国大学生年度人物评选”,没有几句话是真的,我们可以看到一个真实的吴莹莹,一个有点小聪明,从小喜欢鼓捣个小发明的,长大后有些活动能力的女孩,被一个名不见经传的螺丝壳公司聘用的仅有一个人的“亚洲区副总裁”,经过包装之后,成了一个100多发明的女科学家,ACM主席,国际知名大企业的副总裁,ACM编程大赛的银牌得主,简直就是神童在世。 朱涵大家还记得吗?在学术上,我不相信神童的存在,更不相信在中国会出现,吹得越高,将来打破真相的时候,跌得就越惨,我相信,吴莹莹的神话,持续不了多久了。
水按:新闻的不实性在网络中变得无处可藏,不知道这则新闻是否属实,至少引起人们对日常信息的重新关注
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
论文笔记
博客,结束了信息流掌握在少数人手里的时代,开始了真正的公众传播,但是这样的传播形式是好是坏目前还无法下定论,但是博客乐观者们,比方方博,在奔走四处,为媒体源代码的解放运动而摇旗呐喊。博客带来了媒体源代码的开放,而麦克卢汉很早就提到“媒介是人体的延伸”,博客恰好成了人体的延伸,成了人们虚拟主体自由施展的场域。
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
桃花源归来
《暗恋桃花源》被拍成电影以后,影片事实上就成了三种语言的奇妙织体:台词(文字)语言,舞台(剧场)语言和电影(镜头)语言。三种语言的织体丰富了影片的语言层次感,这一点本身就颇有意味。电影不是什么综合艺术,不过,如果我们要对电影《暗恋桃花源》进行台词语言、舞台语言的分析的话,毫无疑问是在承认二者同属电影语言“讲述”范围内的前提下的。我们可以说,从电影语言到舞台语言到台词语言,对于《暗恋桃花源》而言,是向下兼容的。
一、台词语言
话剧是语言的艺术。这句话的含义更多地偏向于诸如莎士比亚的戏剧,在莎士比亚那里,人物的台词常常是一泻千里,痛快淋漓的。往往是通过语言造就不朽的人物。
今天,我们仍然可以说,话剧是语言的艺术;但我们追求的语言艺术已不同昔日。
1、词语意指之确定性的丧失。
词语在话语中的意义主要是通过上下文关系来获得的,而不是依据字典的定义或字面的意思。今天尤为突出的是,词语作为一种符号,其能指与所指之间的一种确定性对应关系发生了松动甚至丧失。于是,以往被某种定义保护起来的概念遭到了迎面质疑。
“桃花源”刚开始是老陶在开酒瓶。这酒瓶有瓶盖但就是打不开。老陶一边说着:“这叫什么家?买个药买一天了还买不回来,这还叫个家吗?”说完去拿刀,“康里康朗康里康朗”开酒不成,“不喝可以了吧!”把酒与刀拍在桌上。“我吃饼!”拿饼坐下,“武陵这个地方,根本就不是个地方,穷山恶水,泼妇刁民,鸟不语花还不香呢!我老陶打个鱼嘛,嘿,那鱼好像都串通好了一块儿不上网!老婆满街跑没人管!什么地方!”吃饼,可这饼像橡皮一样根本吃不动。起身,用刀,“康里康朗康里康朗”,砍不动。“这叫什么刀?这叫什么饼?这根本就不是饼!大家都不是饼!” 在此,渔夫老陶的生存状态不是一个没酒没饼的问题,而是有酒喝不到、有饼吃不动的问题。他周围的任何一个事物,家,酒,刀,饼,地方,按老陶的说法,都已经不能再这样称呼了,甚至包括老婆在内。我们看到,这些东西虽然还是那个东西,可对老陶来说,确实已经不再具备那个东西的属性,从而老陶开始怀疑人们对它们的命名。
如果说上面所说还只是对具体的东西--“物”--而言,那么下述例子则直接就是对美学概念和范畴的质疑:
“桃花源”导演“袁老板”发现布景上的一棵桃树只剩下一片空白,而舞台上又莫名其妙地多了一棵桃树时,不禁大为不解。他叫来美工小林。小林说,这叫“留白”。“留白?”导演立刻挠头。小林说:“这留白很有意境的啊!”“意境?”导演的语气表明,他对这些概念根本抱有一种拒斥同时甚至有些恐惧的味道。“留白”、“意境”本来是中国传统艺术与美学理论的最高境界,可导演只通过对两个概念进行疑问句式的“重读”,就表达了一种态度。最后,他百思不得其解,苦闷地大声喝问:“这棵桃树为什么要逃出来?”难道是为了“留白”和“意境”吗?我们也可以认为,这是对老陶离家出走之行为缘由的询问。导演在戏中安排了老陶因老婆春花与袁老板有奸情而痛感“夫妻失和,家庭破碎,愤世嫉俗,情绪失调”,因此到上游去了;但导演在这里关于布景的一句呐喊似乎是说:我也不知道老陶出走的真正原因。这就对传统意义上的所谓“情节”即“因果关系链”进行了一次破除。
2、对语言与人的关系的思索--人被语言所困,人通过语言得到解放。
自索绪尔对语言进行共时性研究以来,语言与人的关系问题一直是人文科学的焦点课题。“桃花源”一剧中人物的说话可以说集中体现了这些思考。老陶来到桃花源,发现春花也在这儿。后经解释,原来不是春花,是桃花源中的女人。
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
换汤不换药(广告观点)
2006年11月16日 13时44分 浙江在线新闻网站
11月14日,包括麦当劳和可口可乐在内的10家大型食品和饮料公司宣布,从明年开始,他们面向儿童消费者的广告将更注重宣传健康食品和敦促儿童多运动。
这10家公司的广告占到了面向儿童的食品和饮料商业电视广告中的三分之二,他们同意将减少用诸如怪物史莱克等卡通人物来宣传食品或饮料的广告数量,另外这些公司表示他们在互联网上刊登的商业广告将主要敦促儿童注重健康,其中一半的广告将宣传营养健康的食品或力促儿童多参加体育锻炼。不过,这10家公司称,他们并不计划停止宣传含糖谷类食品或是脂肪较多的油炸类食品。对此,一些批评人士指出,这些公司的“健康广告”效果将十分有限。美国公众利益科学研究中心的主任迈克尔·雅科伯森表示:“这些大公司只不过是做做样子而已,拿麦当劳来说,如果他们继续给儿童消费者提供垃圾食品,哪怕他们的广告里敦促儿童多锻炼也同样是弊大于利。”
这一举措,跟在香烟上写着吸烟有害健康一样,左边高唱健康,右边给你毒药。要是真的觉得健康很重要,可以停止生产垃圾食品,转向健康食品制造。当然,这是很偏激的想法。我们不得不承认,在媒体发达的今天,这类公益广告还是有一定影响力的。麦当劳等大型食品公司的这一策略,对维护自身品牌形象大有裨益,广告的效果在于能否达成广告目标,而这些公司的广告目的一定可以通过健康广告到达消费者,所以广告效果会很好。然而社会效果会如何则是令人担忧的。
硬的不行来软的
10月25日消息,专栏作者鸿水日前在新浪的个人博客上发表了一封《关于声讨〈夜宴〉〈宝贝计划〉等DVD碟片“强制消费”广告的公开信》,声称现在正版碟片前都有大量广告,而且广告是不能快进的,他呼吁众多消费者联合起来,为消费者选择权向碟片商宣战。此举在网上已得到数千名网民的支持,但相关部门却说法律对此没有明确规定。
据悉,鸿水曾分别致电多个部门询问有关事宜。中国消费者协会认为这存在强制消费,但说他们不是主管单位,对此很无奈;北京市新闻出版局音像电子网络管理处明确回复说:法律法规目前没有明文规定这种强制消费广告的合法性;工商部门给的说法是他们只负责广告的内容,至于这样的发布形式是否合理,他们不管……
贴片广告,从《英雄》开始走红,一不留神成为众多广告营销策划的追捧对象,且屡试不爽。广告,在大众媒体上已经到了随时毙命于遥控器下的命运,在电影中借贴片形式,居然还可以强奸大众的眼睛,持续许久,实数不易。今天,观众们终于揭竿而起,开始反抗这种硬性广告。一时间,贴片广告,从新奇玩意儿到人人喊打的老鼠,连广告监管部门都还没回过神儿,对策就更没有。我们还得耐心等待,在慢慢呈现出的广告新形式下,监管会逐渐跟上。其实,作为电影的营销运营方应该多动脑,想出个让商家、观众都满意的法子来,贴还是要贴,重要得是怎么贴,硬的不行咱来软的,《手机》就曾经运用软行内置广告,作为导演的老冯莫非忘了?
终于回家了

很久没来我的博客了,最近我们学校封杀了blogspot,今天居然上去了,很意外。原以为我还得搬家,现在可以安心住下去了。得好好庆祝一下。
19:00,大家匆忙从朝外的写字间奔向地铁的时候,我却在这个时候悠闲地去公司上班。21:00我走出公司大楼,深呼吸,终于下班了。急匆匆地跑去坐846,想着最好有个座位,好能看会儿书。一天的生活好像刚刚开始,当夜降临的时候。回到宿舍,坐在电脑前,开始写今天的广告时评,这是《中国广告年鉴》的主编交给我的任务,想来已经坚持写三个多月了。不得不承认,文字功底是靠慢慢积累的,得感谢他。
一个多月以来,笔试了很多地方,结果都被鄙视了,唉,以前保送了研究生,没经历过什么风雨,而今都受了。在北京没有工作经验,又不是牛校的,只有一个结果,被拒。用人单位说的都很好听,不拘一格降人才,但是......真的很受打击,好在我是越挫越勇的。前些天我拒了几个老师给我的PhD offers,因为我觉得自己还是适合出去工作,而不是做研究。虽然可以跟老师做电视节目策划研究,可我觉得还是应该到真正的职场锻炼一下才能有真正的收获,哪怕撞得头破血流。所以,该来的都来吧,我勇敢接受,长风破浪会有时,直挂云帆济沧海。
差点儿忘了,我换了新形象,大家都说像超女,让我很郁闷,毕竟我也是奔三的人了,怎么愿意跟那小女孩儿凑热闹。无奈。
Sunday, October 22, 2006
今天大扫除!

很长时间没有写博客了,这段时间都在疲于考试,一个出版编辑的专业技术考试,到了考场才发现,功亏一篑。最可恶的是,很多人因为参加了辅导班,有内部资料,所以考得很好,我当时心疼那800人民币,没有报,跟考试题失之交臂。所以能否通过,只能听天由命了。现在, 终于考完了,今天一个朋友提醒我,再不来打扫下,我的博客之家就都是灰了,这不,赶紧来劳动。
今年,北京的天气很奇怪,10月初还穿裙子呢,这会儿子已经可以穿毛衣了,跟娃娃的脸似的,说变就变。房间里也冷,但是图书馆特别热,不知道为什么,我们学校的空调一年四季都开着,好像电费很便宜的样子哦。冷热交替太快,让我这种反应迟钝的人不好适应。好在阳光还是蛮足的,这让我的心情没受到寒冷天气的影响,还是每天兴高采烈的,像个小傻子。要开始找工作了,希望这样的好心情能给我带来好运。
Sunday, October 08, 2006
没有月亮的中秋节
Friday, October 06, 2006
月光真美 :)
皓魄当空宝镜升,云间仙籁寂无声。平分秋色一轮满,长伴云衢千里明。
[浩瀚广阔的夜空中,月亮像一面宝镜般升起来。万籁无声,似乎连天上的仙乐也因为美丽的月色而停止了演奏,空中只飘着淡淡的云朵。遥望天上,这一轮满月,正在这仲秋之夜升起,美丽得可以和整个天际相比。长伴在那薄云间,把人间照耀得明亮无比。]
因为是中秋节的关系,夜晚学校的路灯都熄灭了, 我想应该是为了让人们安心赏月的缘故吧!尽管周围的高楼有霓虹闪烁,但是看见躺在草坪上赏月的人们还是能感受到他们的那份惬意与释然,在满是霓虹的城市能够有多少给月亮照射的空间?又有多少人能安适的望望天上的月亮? 希望中秋节的时候让月亮成为主角吧,沐浴皎洁的月光,给千里之外的家人打个电话,念念久违的朋友,想起心底的某个人嘴角泛起微笑------
月光真美~
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
若鱼报到:)
我会努力的,晚安!
Friday, September 29, 2006
教师节快乐!
在孔老师的生日,我也真诚的谢谢教育我成才的各位老师。我是一个懒惰、没有信心的人,是老师们使我不断严格要求自己,他们给予了我厚望,每每想到这,我都会有很大的压力同时也有很大的动力,这让我不断的前进。这里我要感谢我的恩师游刃,他是个诙谐幽默而又深藏不露的高人,(不是因为他常常来我的博客看,我就这样说,而是发自内心的)我的大学毕业论文是游刃老师指导的,那是我第一次真正走近游刃老师,说来惭愧,老师教我两年,到毕业才真正了解老师的学识。他为我的研究生研究打下了良好的基础,每当我的导师夸奖我的论文的时候,我在心里都会谢游刃老师一次。可能在老师心中,我只是众多学生中的一个,可在我心中,却是一辈子的恩师。
老师是伟大的,没有老师,就没有今天的我。所以当我成了一个老师的时候,我深知自己身上的担子有多重;当我得到学生的认可时,我落泪了。
我觉得做个老师很幸福,做个学生也很幸福
Saturday, September 23, 2006
my best friend's wedding我最好朋友的婚礼
在这个婚礼上,我看到了很多久违的同学,有的已经十几年没见了,几乎叫不出名字,只是依稀记得这个人我认识。他们大多结婚生子,在这群人中我找不到可以聊的话题,因为我关心的只是我的书和学生生活,而他们大多谈论的时是爱子。婚礼结束以后,我去了一个同学家,看了她不到一岁的儿子,很可爱。我很难把当年蹦蹦跳跳的小女孩跟眼前这个抱着孩子一副幸福样子的妈妈联系在一起。时间过得真快,到了奔三的年纪,觉得时间过得越来越快,很害怕。我在杜克项目时曾问过这个问题:“你怕老吗?”, 今天我用这个问题问我自己,是的我怕老,怕孤单的老去。
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
同年同月同日生的同学,一起写同一个博客
一个歪想——不同的追问,不同的效果
最差的网站,如果被追问最好的网站,恐怕hotmail、windows update 也同样会上榜。常常被关注和评价的网站都是最有名的一些网站。我们不免想想,越是有名的网站,用户就越多,问题自然也就越大。当我们问去这个网站的好处是什么,每个人都会列出一大箩筐,同样要是问坏处,每个人也会列出更多的东西,当你看问题的角度不一样的时候,同一件事有了不同的效果。做宣传的人,常常要巧妙的提问,从而得到良好的效果。
Thursday, September 14, 2006
我的一个美国朋友的博客 陆庭阁
Posted at 11:21 PM
Posting about this censorship stuff, like in the previous post, made me feel a little bit guilty. I don't want you guys to think that I don't like China, or that I don't want to go back there. (Seriously, I do want to go back, as soon as possible) Therefore, I want to say one thing:
Every Chinese person I met in China made me smile. Despite whatever government restrictions might be on them, Chinese people themselves must be the most delightfully candid people on the planet. I still remember when my language partner said, "Next time we go out to eat, we can invite your very handsome roommate!" In America, we just don't say things like that. Not because it wasn't an accurate statement (my roommate was indeed handsome), but because we have too many built up defense mechanisms against exposing our true thoughts. American praise is couched in body language, or the occasional smile. We will also never say, "That girl is very beautiful." Such directness simply doesn't exist in American culture anymore. It has been replaced with euphemisms like "hot" and "fine". Oddly enough, I feel the most free when speaking Chinese, because I can say really direct, personal statements and not feel like a jerk.
I'm not sure if my Chinese readers will quite understand what I'm trying to say. What I mean is: American culture leaves so much unspoken and unwritten that sometimes it feels like we aren't saying anything, except for the sweet nothing language of the public sphere.
An example: I got the feeling while at the Duke Program that the 小老师们were getting a little annoyed, or at least highly amused, with the American students, because we said “谢谢”and "对不起“ about once every four seconds. The Chinese position on this issue actually makes a lot of sense: if someone is your friend, there should really be no need to continually thank them. In America, though, there is this sense that everyone except ourselves is part of the public sphere, and should be treated as such. In America, we don't even say that another person is our friend. Doing that would leave us too open, too exposed. Maybe so, but important things need to be said.
I was going to write more, but I should go to bed. I'll finish the rest of this thought tomorrow. My point is: I don't dislike Chinese people. Our time in the Duke program together and the emails I still receive remind me of warmth that has long been lost in American culture. It had been many years since I heard the word "friend".
我很感谢他能这样想,他让我看到了中国文化的真诚。不同的生活语言能够体现人和人之间的关系,在杜克项目我确实听到了很多的谢谢,让我很不习惯。这些谢谢和对不起,让我懂得了应该更多的尊重别人和他们的私人空间,表达自己的感谢。中国人可能很少用语言真心的表达我们的谢意,扪心自问,爸爸妈妈的辛苦都是为了我,可是我却没有认真地对他们说声谢谢;我的朋友在我生病和思想混乱的时候帮助我,我也没有谢过他们,而且在伤害了他们的时候没有对他们说声对不起。这一次,我想对我的朋友、亲人说声谢谢,谢谢一直以来对我的帮助和支持;对于我曾经的疏忽和过错,对大家说声对不起。
诙谐的新闻,有力的广告(广告观点)
9月11日,美国总统布什在白宫面向全国发表纪念“9·11”五周年电视演讲,称不管花多长时间,美国人民都要抓到恐怖分子头目本·拉登。但美国《新闻周刊》网站却在12日恶搞布什讲话,称总统宣称将使用谷歌搜索引擎来寻找拉丹。
事情原由为,在全国电视讲话中,布什称:“奥萨马·本·拉登和其他恐怖分子仍然在逃。我们传达的信息非常明确——不管耗费多长时间,美国人都将找到你。” 然而就是这样一篇严肃的讲话,在《新闻周刊》网站却被恶搞成“本·拉登,你可以逃跑,但无处可藏。用Google就可以找到你。”演讲结尾时布什还说:“我现在就用Google搜索你,我感到很幸运(因为有Google搜索引擎)。”
名人效应,历来被广告界所看重。无论是恶搞还是有意为之,笑谈却给Google做了一个大广告。不免让人想起当年那个总统最讨厌的书和总统最喜欢的书的笑话来。不过,Google这个搜索引擎的老大,确实也厉害的很。这是一条非常好的广告语,Google公司应该颁个广告奖给《新闻周刊》,经典极了,渗透了美国人的幽默诙谐。
速时时代的广告也速时(广告观点)
得克萨斯6月15日消息,拥有1200个美国广播电台的世界知名广播公司——清晰频道(Clear Channel)计划播放世界上最短的广告——1秒钟广告。
本次Blinks品牌的广告,清晰频道已经制作了几个样带,其中之一就是采用了麦当劳“I’m lovin’ it”的品牌主题,删除了里面的歌词,将曲子压缩后在两档音乐节目之间播放[m1]
清晰频道的Jim Cook这样向《广告时代》杂志描述他们的新技术,“很多广告主一直希望我们可以证明自己,证明我们的媒体可以成功地推广品牌,可以成功地用新奇的手段来吸引消费者。现在我们就是真正的在发掘广播的新用途,以此来满足广告主。”
广告很久以前就已经出现了某种停滞期,继大卫·奥格威之后的广告界理念有新意的不多,如今清晰频道推出了一秒钟广告的大胆尝试,也是想突破这个停滞的瓶颈。一秒钟广告究竟能带来多大的新意空间还得斟酌。我们以往的广告5到30秒不等,而今却只用一秒钟来浓缩所要传达的广告信息,对于广告公司和广告品牌都是一个极大的挑战。社会网络化带给人们时空感的压缩,由此引发了速时时代的到来,身处其中的人们,焦虑而不再有耐心来看成堆的“广告垃圾”(广告垃圾是指大众认为广告是垃圾,同垃圾广告是两个不同的概念),遥控器的换台键和网页右上角的关闭键成了广告的致命杀手。一秒钟广告,也许会在受众得到“瞬时震惊”而达到成效,也许在受众得到“瞬时困惑”中死于非命,所以能够驾驭一秒钟广告的广告商必须已经具备很高的品牌知名度,而广告制作方则需要具有独特的创意和凝练的信息表达方式。此外,我们需要寻求是否存在对于此商品的一秒种广告有“阅读”能力的潜在受众,并加以培养。速时时代的广告速时是一种随时代变迁应运而生的一种形式,我们期待它有好的表现。
“博导来也”
9月5日,新浪《广告导报》博客点击总量突破100万,“广告专业杂志”的独特身份格外引人注目。
据悉,导报博客每日为读者带来国内外经典广告作品,并加以深度点评。雅俗共赏的内容构成,稳定严谨的更新方式,让导报博客拥有了独特的气质,从而也赢得了读者的好评。
《广告导报》的这一举动可谓“与时俱进”(既然是官方博客,咱也用官方的术语评之)。此中有真意,博客是很有发展前景的2.0版网络传播媒介,用这一方式宣传杂志,到达率可能更高,也会吸引更多的业外眼球。更有意思的是,广告导报摇身变成了博导——博客广告导报,名副其实的广告专业博导,同行们也要来学习学习。这种杂志进入博客可能会促进一个新的传播形式产生,比方广告博客圈子的出现,是不是会带来更大的社会影响。同时,这个博导也不是一定舒服当,网络初兴之时,很多的媒体将内容原封照搬到网上,结果宣传效果欠佳,所以要将博客办得是博客,而不是杂志的网络版,这是一个需要注意的问题,尤其博客中已经出现了“博客体”的文学样式,你如何书写才能吸引你的受众群还要看写者的功力了。还有博客的一个本质是开放的2.0,源代码开放,我们获得信息是免费的,作为杂志如何在博客上有效经营也是一个新的课题。
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
博客指南---选自三联生活周刊
1.在真正明白“blog”一词的含义之前,不要轻易使用它。根据定义,blog的组成单位包含“链接+评注”。这里的评注,并非乔伊斯的意识流,它很个人化,但更具观点性。因为有评注,你的blog更像个人网站,你更像新闻工作者或作家。
2.所以,天可怜见,不要写自己;不要写朋友;不要写家庭;不要写宠物;不要写对你暗送秋波的姑娘;也不要写你的约会。选一个真正的主题或是系列,然后坚持写完它——如果一周内用“我”多于一次,那么你就大错特错了。没人对你或你的所作所为有兴趣(除非你是帕丽斯·希尔顿)。blog可能为所有认识你的人所阅读,包括你的老板、宗教领袖或父母,如果不希望他们读到你的文章,发表时请三思而后行。
3.除非严肃对待,否则不要blog。世间最可怕的事莫过于一个月不更新blog。不要忘记你对读者做了承诺,你提供内容、他们阅读。确定每周发表的数量,然后坚持下去。如果访问量上不去,别哭哭啼啼,也别骂娘,先看看是不是自己两个星期没有发新文章,而且上次的文章是关于你任性的猫。同理,不要随便发文,发文只花五分钟,这绝对是错误的。你肯定没有深入思考文章主题。
4.别把blog当作随意毁谤、传播谣言之所。的确,你不是为《纽约时报》写稿,不过还是应该保持公正。尖酸刻薄没问题,不过要知道有些狗娘养的家伙会利用blog的评注功能来胡说八道,若不加以严厉打击,他们所言就等同于出自你口。你得为blog上出现的每一个字负责。
5.读者批评时别反应过激。虽然你所写的都是自己的酸甜苦辣,但要求别人和你统一思想不大现实。如果有人攻击你,可以关闭评注功能、删除评注,甚至阻止IP地址。若有人组织五个马甲十个站点来群殴你,干脆当作享受!没有敌人者不能算成功。至少,我们还在发表自己的意见。
6.保持礼貌。别人链接了你时,说一声“谢谢”。礼仪是社会之轮的润滑剂。
想想简单的语言
P.S. ( )里的是给我的美国学生的解释。
Thursday, September 07, 2006
手机美学

有人可能提出反对,因为网络使我们更像地球村,而不是手机。那么,你通过什么上网呢?电脑、手机。以目前的技术来看,电脑有一定的限制,比方它把你固定在座位上,甚至室内;它需要大量的电,即使有电池,最多能坚持五六个小时左右。而手机,你可以带着它到处走,用一只手就能控制,只要开通GPRS你就可以上网。手机的使用过程中,你可以充分地体验移动技术带给你的快感。手机是一个漫游的媒介。
在用电脑的时候,常常会觉得时间很短暂,一天忽悠一下就没了;而手机则稍微收敛,一般来说,说话的时间都很短,(除了喜欢泡电话粥的人们),事完就挂。还有就是在冯先生的《手机》中出现过的场景,严守一接电话只说了几个语气词“嗯?嗯.嗯!”,让人想入非非。你无意中听到的电话对话常常是不完整的信息,而这样的信息给了你充分的想象空间,可能有人说这是闲着没事儿撑的,可是人都有格式塔心理,在感觉到一个片断的时候不自觉的去填空。你在公交车上、地铁上有过这样的事情吗?而且不承认不行的是,听过以后加上你的想象,常常会有一种快感。手机也为你的生活增添了另一种乐趣。
Thursday, August 31, 2006
生活在落后地区
Monday, August 28, 2006
搬家乱想曲
可是书的作用倒是是什么?人们为什么而读书?又能从书中得到什么?我是个电视狂,常常看电视看到很晚,总是被别人骂,但是同样是看电视,凭什么就认为我没有从中思考出东西来呢?所以书,你能从书中得到什么呢?一定是知识吗?你相信你读到的所以的书的内容吗?我开始胡思乱想。
博客这个地方就是提供人想象和释放的空间的,所以即使胡言乱语也不大碍。今天是太累了,真的语无伦次了。
顺便说一句,最近大家都在说冥王星的事,可怜的,好歹也是个“明星”,就这么进入二流阶层了,但是冥王星就是冥王星,不会因为人类的一个归类而发生变化......
Friday, August 25, 2006
生活中的大智慧

我的专业是美学,可是常常有人质疑我研究的是什么?说实话,我也在研究。其实什么是美学?我理解,就是寻找生活中的智慧。什么是智慧?仁者见仁,智者见智。对于我来说,寻找原生态的美,引起人的心灵原初震撼的感觉的就是美。这种美虽然是人本能的美,但是却是人们往往忽略的。有的时候很怕别人问我什么是美,这可能是我们永远不能达成一致的问题。今天的美包容着美与丑的两面性,而人们往往面对这种丑态的美津津乐道,有莫名的快感(pleasure)。
其实各人有各人的美学理念,只是他自己未必将这个理论化。比方说,生活美学(有人又会说是生活哲学。事实是走到今天,美学和哲学在某种程度上已经相一致了。)我的生活美学就是简约,我的生命美学就是真实、本真,这个说起来很容易,做起来却很难。回到美学上去,就是寻找生活的原生态,就能达到这种生活美学。最好的办法,是擦亮自己的眼睛,打扫自己的心灵,赶走蒙蔽在我们生活中的丑恶和虚幻。找到原生态、找到本真,找到生活中原本的大智慧。
作为研究美学的人,我能够做到的就是比别人多了一个看世界的角度。
Thursday, August 24, 2006
收拾心情,开始新学期
转眼间,我的研究生生活只剩下一年了,所以得好好享受一下。读书、跟同学交谈、兼职打工、应付各种各样的考试。我从DUKE的孩子们身上学到了刻苦努力,要在还是学生的时候好好履行这个责任。新的梦想,新的学期,新的开始。
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
怀念杜克的孩子们
我是米国人 ————杜克孩子们的可爱语录
2莫德伟:是不是不能问女士“你有了?”(13课,7.10)
3芮登满:猫头鹰一说,就有人死。
4老师问:一个女生问你“做我的男朋友吧?”
大阪:我们再研究研究。
5“猫王”卜加瑞:那是朱老师在叫。
6姜俊模:我还爱牧老师,告诉牧老师我是好学生。
7严做禅:你好们,再们见!
8范瑞明:我吃了一块瓜西。
9黄大龙:我们做对一对的时候…… 老师,代欣有什么意思?
10 老师:给妈妈打电话表示什么?财部诚太郎:表示我还没死(14课,7.11)
11 老师:上课总说“再说一次”合适吗?
石诺亚:对不起,请再说一次!(14课,7.11)
12史瑞丹:中国菜里有很多味精,我吃了,丢很多身体。(15课,7.12)
13 杨杰勇:可乐的白色的朋友叫什么?(15课,7.12)
14 卢可:胖有一个好处,没有饭吃的时候可以吃我的胖。
15 葛家瑞:你把交通规则毁了。(16课,7.13)
16 严做禅:法国人的头发比较远。
17 单老师:黄大龙!
黄大龙(睡觉中):什么?再说一次!
老师茫然:我什么也没说。
18 牧老师:什么地方的人喜欢吃面食?
卢可:南,,南,,南 牧老师怒火:南什么?
卢可:男生!19 严做禅:请把我的作业给一个男边的老师。
20 高安德:我跟书本谈恋爱。
21 王老师:今天牧老师听课,我有点儿担心。
白安琪:没关系,牧老师让全世界的人担心。
22 李老师:教育学家精通什么?
艾箬竹:教育学家??会说话!
23 陆庭阁:谢谢老师帮我找回了把握
昨非的诗歌
Even a Phantom Gets Thirst
Suddenly the phantom gets thirsty
He moves to the top of
the plaza of the city
and looks down
He wonders if he could jump
to the core of the ocean below
where sea plants live intimately
without having to breathe
But he can’t
the unbearable lightness of being
is there to stop him from dropping
from touching you
when the wind blows hard
in a season so heartbroken
with all the chirps of bird
crying in one direction
连一个幽灵也会饥渴
幽灵突然觉得饥渴
他挪到城市
广场的上空
俯瞰众生
他想知道自己能不能
跳进海洋的核心
海里的植物不用呼吸
亲密地生活在一起
但他却不能
因为不可承受的生命之轻
阻止他坠落
阻止他触摸你
此时狂风大作
在一个心碎的季节里
所有的鸟儿
都朝着同一个方向
哭泣
Tonight
Tonight I am sleeping on
a wooden bed at a foreign town
I see myself lie on one side
as people cross their hands to pray
I cross my feet and
put one hand behind my holy hair
and the other hand my secular ear
the same posture of the mummy
at a museum on an island
the other day I saw
I know my days are numbered
tonight the hourglass comes to an end
I hear people laugh and cry
back from the party
car engines growl and then die
like suddenly I feel the whole sea
rise to stand on a needle point
and you know how
unbearable life can be
Tonight I wonder what could happen to
us, the whole race in the evolution process
but not me, the insignificant ant
that will be eaten away by other insects
but I still worry about what could become
the remnants of the dust
For how could I disappear
before I grow into a true lover
so pretentious and sweet-hearted
that I swear I will love
glory or poverty or whatever
that I will build my own establishment
and be an expatriate
and so bloody and blind
that I will support a revolution or a dictator
or lead a coup d’etat
on a remote part of the planet
that finally I am tried by my people
as a traitor
and spend the rest days
as I am imprisoned
and no paper and
water is very precious
with which I write on the wall with my finger
and I sleep on this wooden bed
and I say this life is beyond description
like suddenly the whole sea
rises to stand on a needle point
and you know how unbearable
it can be
今夜/今夜我睡在/异乡小镇的一张木床上/看到自己侧身躺着/像祷告的人们合上双手/我合上了双脚/一只手放在神圣的发际/另一只搁在世俗的耳根/这姿势/和我某天在一个小岛博物馆里/看到的木乃伊一样/我的日子屈指可数/今夜,沙漏即将流尽/我听到人们从晚会归来后/哭哭笑笑/汽车引擎咆哮又恢复死寂/突然间我感到/整个大海/立在了一枚针尖上/于是你知道/生命是多么/不堪忍受/今夜我不知道什么会降临在我们头上/我们, 这进化过程中的整个种族/而不只是我自己——/这只会被其他昆虫啮咬的/微不足道的蚂蚁/但我还是忧虑/化为尘埃之后又会怎样/可是我怎么能够消失呢/在还没有成为一个/真正的爱人之前/成为虚妄又亲密的爱人之前/发誓自己将热爱/光荣,贫穷,或其他的什么/建立自己的基业/亡命天涯/如此血腥又如此盲目地/支持一场革或独裁者//或者在这星球遥远的一隅/发动一场政变/最后被自己的人民/当作叛徒审判/然后在监狱里/度尽我的残年/没有纸/水非常宝贵/我用手指蘸着/在墙上写下这些文字/我睡在这张木床上/ 我说人生无法用言语形容/ 就仿佛突然间我感到/整个大海/立在了一枚针尖上/于是你知道/生命是多么/不堪忍受







