| laoyao 的个人资料A Chinese in America日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
|
|
7月19日 Al Gore: The Assault on Reason
The attack toward Bush and his gang only elevates as this book unfolds. From the title of the chapters, you can see what Gore is picking on: the economical policy that bias on the rich (e.g., tax cut), lies that misled the public (e.g., Iraq War), violation of individual rights (e.g., Patriot Act), ignorance of the real threat the nation faces (e.g., Taliban), environmental policy (which I skipped since I think I am well aware of this issue), and violation of the check and balance principal of American policy (e.g., the puppet Republican congress).
Gore’s major point in this book is that democracy relies on the rational reasoning of citizens, which could be easily damaged by the politician’s exploitation to the public’s irrational emotions like fear, religion, credulity, etc. But the biggest enemy that Gore deemed of democracy, at least in my impression, is the dominance of TV in media. The author, who is also president of Current TV, asserts that printed press is one of vital motives of Enlightenment, as well as one of the biggest premises the Founding Fathers designed their delicate democratic systems under because they believed that democracy can only work when the citizens are well informed. Gore argues that reading requires more thinking than watching TV, and also printed press is more accessible for individual voices. Therefore, TV is a more one-way media, that would weaken the foundation of democracy, the idea market. So in the end of his book, Gore expressed his hope in the new medium, internet, which is unprecedently easy to access, extremely decentralized, and more text-oriented (which is of course not true, but I guess Gore doesn’t go internet to download porn).
I am a huge fan of internet, and can’t agree more with Gore’s
point of view that the neutrality of internet must be defended. And I am more optimistic
than anyone about the positive changes internet is going to bring to this
world, including (actually especially) China. But proponent of internet
doesn’t have to be opponent of TV, nor does that of print. I think TV is just a
natural thing, developed from the progress of electronic technology, and reached
prosperity due to the human nature like curiosity and laziness. I’ve seen
enough conservatives attacking TV because they are afraid of anything new. Surely TV have a lot of bad influence, but I think Gore as a liberal, should think about how to use TV's positive side and ways to minimize the other side. Simply bashing is often annoying.
As for the relationship between reason and democracy, that’s
a much bigger topic. I used to be a sort-of fundamentalist of rationalism. Irony
that it was during my composition of 数学乐旅 and 诲淫乐旅,
some pieces I deemed as the high triumph of rationality, that I started
re-think about it. My doubt came from the clear fact that people don’t always
act or think rationally. And even when we think people are acting based on careful income-and-expense analysis, their real motivations are often something deep under their rational calculation, something mysteriously rooted in their sub-consciousness. Furthermore, a society that everyone is as rational as a computer, can probably make everyone benefit a lot, but I highly suspect it would also lose the meaning of human life. Even Gods envy human life because we can love, hate, fear, as well as hope. But of course, Gore is not proposing Reason rules alone. He also acknowledged Nazism, fascism, communism as results of rationalism that swept away human instinct and common sense by the so-called reason. However, Bush administration apparently have gone too far toward the other pole. And that's what most motivated Gore to write this book. By any means, this book is just like Gore himself. A politician with
academician temperament. His writing is detail oriented, sometimes more than
what the readers need or care. The presentation is often boring and repetitive. I didn't watch "An Inconvenient Truth" so I don't know how boring that one is. I am sure Gore would think his books are far more valuable than those movie thing that is only one-way and doesn't encourage thinking, but had not been this move, I bet most people would not read his book. That's the dilemma he wouldn't be willing to admit. I just always feel bad for those public figures when I read their books and realize how self-contradictory they are. 5月11日 Joel Klein: History of American Political Consulting (Part I: Presidential Campaigns) OK, Just kidding. His title is actually "Politics Lost", with subtitle "How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid". And yes, this is the most trivialized book I've ever listened to. Here is an example given by a New York Times book review: For example, when Klein writes of Pat Caddell, a pioneering pollster, "His junior partners — people like Paul Maslin and Mike Donilon — had relationships with other media consultants, and they also had clients who wanted Bob Squier or Ray Strother, not Doak and Shrum, to do their advertising," the observation is no more interesting in context than it is here. Naturally, my reaction was like reading a Chinese article mentioning Anselm of Canterbury, Pierre Abélard, Solomon Ibn Gabirol,Peter Lombard and Gilbert de la Porrée as if they were author's friend 胡适之. (BTW, don't worry, I have heck no idea what these people are either. I simply copied this list from a wiki page about something I don't understand.) But everyone who reads TIME knows who Joe Klein is. One of the best and most influential political analysts in this country, whose article appears in the first several pages of each TIME, and who closely followed all presidential campaigns in the past three decades. No wonder he would write his book like Stephen Hawkins assuming every reader knows Dirac, Poisson, or Arrhenius (BTW, I know all of them. :-)). His book started with a speech Robert Kennedy gave in front of a mostly black audience when he was campaigning in Indianapolis and the breaking news came that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. RFK gave a spontaneous short yet very emotional speech, in which he talked about the assassination of his brother for the first time in public. He pledged for non-violence, and pray. It turned out Indianapolis was the only major city that didn't have riots in the black community after MLK's death. Joe Klein saw this as a real example of statemanship, that shows the human side of a politician, which may seem weak but is actually what human decency is all about. And then, he started talking about a young Democratic pollster named Pat Caddell, who at the same time in the Deep South, was developing a totally new way of polling: not only asking voters whom you are going to vote for, but also ask what issues you concern most, what if this candidate runs head-on with that candidate, would you vote for this candidate if his position in that issues is......And guess what, 8 years later, at age of 26, he was recruited by a Southerner Jimmy Carter, who according to Klein, had an instant mutual attraction with Caddell when they met.  So it begins Joe Klein's History of American Political Consulting, Part I, Presidential Campaigns: Jimmy Carter - A nice person, honest man, and clumsy politician, as well as weak president. Caddell helped him run a successful campaign in both primary and the general election, but gave some wrong suggestions during his presidency, like incorrectly deciding to please American people rather than lead them, i.e., show them strength (shit, am I writing an SM movie review?). Ronald Reagan - Natural politician, partly due to his actor career. Very good performer, who sometimes can pop out great lines that were not scripted by writers, like "Honey, I forgot to dodge" after Hinkley's assassination. American people love that, and Reagan knew that too. He would refuse suggestions from consultants at times he thought his instinct was correct. And for most of the time, he turned out to be indeed correct. George H. W. Bush - Good policy maker, clumsy politician. He had some great accomplishments during his presidency, but he as a candidate was only mediocre, which led him to lose the re-election because of an economic recession that's at most, medium. (And he won the first election just because his opponent, Dukakis, was even worse.) Bill Clinton - Brilliant politician, one of the best political consultants himself. He is a naturally born master of politics, who can change his position flexibly to turn disadvantages to advantages. He is smart enough to understand what ordinary people want, and explain complicated issues with plain languages, yet human enough to sometimes show his weak side, which made him famous for always coming back (and Monica Lewinsky). In one word, he is good at both dealing with politicians and connecting with voters. Al Gore - Good policy maker, but not good politician. Klein argues that Gore has a tremendous understanding of issues, sometimes to surprisingly impressive details, with an academic attitude (well, think about Global Warming). But his public image was terrible, probably due to he is in essence a shy person. And his academic spirit made him too focused in numbers. Poll numbers. He would make stupid decisions based on who-knows-accurate-or-not numbers, like being scared by some Democratic primary opponent so he announced his complete platform too early that he didn't have enough momentums in the general election. John McCain - Good person who greatly overestimated the importance of personality in politics. In Klein's eyes, McCain's campaign is all about presenting John McCain himself, rather than the traditional campaign that studies the opponent, or what the voters want to hear. His famous "straight talk" campaign theme was great, but just wouldn't work in today's politics. When he met Karl Rove, he got crushed with no chance. George W. Bush - Natural politician. His easy-going and no-nonsense image is very popular in specific voting groups. And his consulting team is simply one of the greatest ever. It has been built for a long time. Bush has faith in them, and they have loyalty to Bush. Oh, and it's led by a man named Karl Rove. What can you say? John Kerry - Lousy candidate. Klein calls him political opportunist. He doesn't know what his position is, merely depending on guessing what voters want him to be. He is just an opposite of his fellow Vietnam veteran John McCain. As a result, he won the Democratic primary as everyone's second choice, but he lost their trust. However, Klein also pointed out that Kerry himself was not that bad. He had faiths and ideals, but just didn't have the guts to refuse the consultants (BTW, according to Klein, Kerry's consultants were in constant internal power struggle). At the end of the book, Klein gave hope, and suggestions, to the new emerging politicians. Like having a "good angle" friend who would suggest you on your conscience, rather than numbers that your consultants would suggest on. And at least on one issue, have a position that less than 40% of the voters would agree with. This book was apparently written in some anger, as well as some despair. I am personally not so angry or desperate though. First of all, the success of certain candidates were always credited to different reasons by different pundits. For example, Bush's 2000 election victory has been attributed to the following factors: evangelicals (religious Right), conservatism strike back, Clinton scandal, Gore arrogance, Bush family connections, Karl Rove......Even if the pundits' analysis are only 10% correct, Bush should have won by landslide. But the election was actually decided by some hundreds old people in Florida, who probably thought they were voting for Gore. Had Gore won, what would the pundits say? They will say the same thing, just in an opposite direction! Yeah, liberal rules, Clinton rocks, rationalism wins, religion sucks, political family go to hell, and Karl Rove is one of the most stupid political consultants you can ever have! And secondly, it makes total sense to me that politicians rely heavily on their consultants. I think politician, just like any other career today, is becoming more and more professionalized and trivialized. This is inevitable. The problem is, while politics have been changing into professionalism as other careers, it still remains a unique career that affects everyone, and in a democracy, affected by everyone. Therefore, a good politician has to maintain a good knowledge of public affairs, and a good skill of public relationships. This is the dilemma of the 2000 election. Gore is almost a scholar, but people don't like his personality. Bush is charming, but he is an idiot as a president. No one can really be successful in both fields. Clinton is close, but still suffered major failures in both sides. You want the human side of politician? Well, then why don you still expect them to be omnipotent? So Klein's suggestion, or hope, of an authentic humane politician, is, to me, too simple, sometimes naive. I think the more applicable solution should be small government. Once the power of the government is limited, people would care less, and there is less for politicians to concern about. That would still require some political consultants, but it would be much doable job now. And don't forget the side effect: politicians will get much less donations and endorsements in a limited government, which means, they will have much less money to hire consultants. 4月16日 Noam Chomsky: Failed States The fact that I was so pissed off by Sean Hannity's "Let Freedom Ring", and that I was very pissed off by Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" before, makes me wonder maybe I have a liberal bias. I mean, it's completely OK to disapprove conservatism, and when it comes to neo-conservatives, you have to fucking hate them. But I better disagree with them because I am not conservative, not because I am liberal, right? And how to prove? ---- Of course, listening to a liberal book to see whether I will be equally pissed off. So I walked into the local library, and looked for liberal audio books. OK, Let's see what we get: "Dude, Where is my country?", "Will they ever trust us again?" Author? Michael Moore. All right, I already feel pissed off. And then, relieved. See? I am not biased. I am just easily pissed off. By the hypocrites and retards from both sides. OK, so what else do I get? Boom, Noam Chomsky! SugarDaddy of all leftists! This person is an academic (Well, I know he is not majored in political science but...), I think, he got to be different from those media nuts. So I checked out this "Failed States", and spent quite some time to import all its 10 CDs into my iPod. And it turned out to be, sorry, disappointing again. First of all, Chomsky's views and the facts he used to support them, are astonishingly biased. He is either shameless or completely blinded by his own political beliefs that he totally ignored any possible fact that could contradict his points while relentless iterating other "useful" facts. Secondly, almost everything I heard from his book were familiar accusations that I've already seen enough from numerous Chinese nationalist web posts. I know it's unfair to discredit Chomsky in this way, since it's more likely those leftists copied and were inspired by him, but I am just too easily pissed off by non-fresh ideas. Actually I've been extremely patient with this book. I listened to the first three CDs, before my patience finally worn out and jumped to the 6th CD. And you know what? I didn't even feel any discontinuity in the content because he was still talking about the same thing! And that thing, by the way, is American imperialism. I checked out this book mainly because I was attracted by the introduction saying that Chomsky claims that US is a failed state itself while it's labeling and propagating democracy in other countries. I am more interested in his analysis of how US government failed in domestic issues, rather than the all-too-familiar anti-America attacks with which his Chinese pupils have already made me pissed-off enough. So I jumped again, this time to the 10th CD. Finally, I heard him talking about secret intelligence, education system, pro-big business, Hurricane Katrina, health care, etc. But, again, nothing really new. But where to find something new? Well, how about Kurt Vonnegut? I checked out his "A man without a country" 10 days ago, with absolutely no idea that the author would die five days later. And five days later when I knew he died, I was in the middle of listening to "Failed States", so I didn't stop to listen to him. Now that "Failed States" completely worn out my patience and expectation, I really need some refreshment for my brain. And who's better than Vonnegut in that? 4月9日 Sean Hannity "Let Freedom Ring" I finished listening to Sean Hannity's "Let Freedom Ring" today. Not an impressive book. Actually there are only two things I still remember about this book. First, when I walked to the bus station in that April morning, got the iPod out of my pocket, selected this book, and pressed "Play", it suddenly started snowing. Snow flakes came from nowhere, blown by cold wind, floating in the air, while the sun was still shining. As a Chinese, my first reaction was, naturally, wow, something unjustified must be happening. And when I heard Hannity talking about his New York City heritage and current residence in Long Island, which made me for one moment wondering how he commutes to the City, I realized what went wrong. Second, the number of times his book made me fall asleep was only second to Stephen Hawkins' "The Universe in a Nutshell", but for a totally different reason, obviously. I mean, I've listened to some good number of audio books now, and this one is definitely the most boring and worst presented. And it's actually read by the author! And the author is actually a co-host of one of the biggest talk show in cable TV! I mean, I didn't expect any humor from this book, which turned out to be an absolutely accurate anticipation of course, but could you, Mr. Sean Hannity, at least show some passion while reading your own book? The only style that is close to Hannity's reading, is some free audio books mp3's on internet that's read by machine. OK, enough personal attacks, which is not really personal. Let's try to talk about the book itself......and, I still don't have anything to say. Well, at least I still remember two attacks from Al Fraken's "Lies" toward this book. One is when Hannity said he felt outrageous when Oliver North, a Vietnam war veteran with numerous military honors, who served his country so bravely but all that he got was attacks from liberals, Al Fraken pointed out that North was criticized not because he served his country bravely, but because he broke the law in the Iran-Contra scandal. The other case was Hannity's proposal to use vouchers in the education system to force the competition between schools and therefore improve the education quality of public schools. Franken pointed out that one example Hannity used actually didn't involve any voucher at all. But in this particular case, I agree with Hannity that there should be competitions between public schools, and vouchers certainly seem to be a reasonable choice. And this is the one thing that I agree with conservatives: small government, free economy, more competition. But I personally don't understand why small government conservatives have to ally with Christian evangelicals, hypocrite moralists, and militant patriots. Maybe the so-called conservatives don't really exist. It's only an ally forced to form by liberalism. Liberalism is secular, so Christian evangelicals hate them. Liberalism champions individual values, opposing in the essence all kinds of collectivism, including moralism and patriotism. Liberalism also proposes big government solutions, which is appealing but not bought by paleo-conservatives. Due to tremendous progress and success of liberalisms in the past centuries, all its enemies were sort of pushed to the corner, and had to get allied to fight back. The American conservatives are not a coherent group called together by a common cause or belief. They are rather forged by the enormous pressure of liberalism. They don't have an inherent fundamental idea that their enemy has. And what if there's no liberalism? they would have fought each other to death. However, among all these different groups, some of the small government conservatives probably still remember their old name: classical liberalism. Yes, you were the real liberalism! You bear the glorious tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson! You are conservatives because you believe in fiscal freedom and individual responsibility. Don't you feel ashamed to mingle with followers of frenzy bigots, arrogant authoritarians, and hypocrite liars? Yes, the modern American liberalism piss you off, but at least they still stay in the rational thinking discourse. You have every good reason to battle their big government ideas, but if that's with irrational thoughts like religion and patriotism in your wings, your victory will taste even bitter. And that's what I want to say about American conservatism. 4月6日 Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them Al Fraken used to be an SNL writer and actor. So you can imagine how he would open his book: God chose me to write this book.．．．．．．The reason I know God chose me is because God spoke to me personally. And God said, “LET THERE BE GOOGLE. AND LET THERE BE LEXISNEXIS.(a tool for media search)” “Very funny, God. I use Google all the time.” “YES, I KNOW,” God said. “FOR HOT ASIAN TEENS.” But of course, Al Franken actually gave the credit of internet to Al Gore. He clarified that Gore never said "I invented internet". Instead, he merely brought up the fact that he championed the funding of the military project that connects some computers together, which as all of us know, was the start of internet. Some conservative media wrote that Gore said he invented internet, and was widely quoted by mainstream media without careful fact check.
3月26日 Terror and LiberalismIt's actually a while ago when I finsihed listening to Paul Berman's <Terror and Liberalism>. I searched on internet, and found a much better review than what I can possibly write:
One of our most brilliant public intellectuals, Paul Berman has spent his career writing on revolutionary movements and their totalitarian aspects. Here he argues that, in the terror war, we are not facing a battle of the West against Islam—a clash of civilizations. We are facing, instead, the same battle that tore apart Europe during most of the twentieth century, only in a new version. It is the clash of liberalism and its enemies—the battle between freedom and totalitarianism that arose in Europe many years ago and spread to the Muslim world.
The author considers the wars against fascism and communism from the past, and draws cautionary lessons. But he also draws from those past experiences a liberal program for the present—a program that departs in fundamental respects from the policies of the Bush administration.
To best illustrate Berman's point, let me quote his same-titled article published in October 2001, that I believe was his initial idea of this book:
The pattern of war in the twentieth century, the pattern that long ago became old and familiar, was established in the aftermath of World War I. For a hundred years before that war, the Western countries had indulged in a comforting sentiment of historical optimism, serene in the conviction that rationality and order were steadily progressing and would go on doing so into the future, and modernity was going to be good. Even the crimes and massacres committed by the Western imperialists in distant places could be pictured as part of the greater landscape of worldwide progress, or at any rate could be kept out of sight. But World War I was an outbreak of something other than rationality and order, and the outbreak took place in the heart of civilized Europe. That was a shock. And a series of extremely powerful movements rapidly arose, each of which rested on the idea that the premises of liberal rationalism and modernity had turned out to be a lie and that modernity in its conventional Western version was a horror.
The antiliberal movements took root in Europe and in small degree even in the United States. As the years went by, though, those same movements spread to other places and eventually to every remote spot where Western culture had also spread--that is to say, almost everywhere. The antiliberal movements flourished in several different versions, sometimes in versions that seemed utter opposites of one another. The Communist insurgency in Russia, dating from the world war itself, was merely the first. Then came Italian Fascists, German Nazis, the Spanish crusade to re-establish the Reign of Christ the King, and so forth, each country producing movements of its own based on local mythologies and customs. Antiliberal movements of the left and the right saw in one another the worst of enemies (except when they saw one another as allies and brothers, which did happen). Yet each of the movements, in their lush variety, entertained a set of ideas that pointed in the same direction.
The shared ideas were these: There exists a people of good who in a just world ought to enjoy a sound and healthy society. But society's health has been undermined by a hideous infestation from within, something diabolical, which is aided by external agents from elsewhere in the world. The diabolical infestation must be rooted out. Rooting it out will require bloody internal struggles, capped by gigantic massacres. It will require an all-out war against the foreign allies of the inner infestation--an apocalyptic war, perhaps even Apocalyptic with a capital A. (The Book of the Apocalypse, as André Glucksmann has pointed out, does seem to have played a remote inspirational role in generating these twentieth-century doctrines.) But when the inner infestation has at last been rooted out and the external foe has been defeated, the people of good shall enjoy a new society purged of alien elements--a healthy society no longer subject to the vibrations of change and evolution, a society with a single, blocklike structure, solid and eternal.
...... The liberal side was internally divided. On the liberal side, there were always people, sometimes in large numbers, who suspected that the antiliberals might be correct in their view of liberalism and might even have justice on their side. And so the twentieth-century wars were ideological in a double sense. There was the struggle of liberalism against its enemies; and there was the struggle of liberalism against itself, a self-interrogation, which was liberalism's strength as well as its weakness.
......
A few dozen or even a few thousand fanatics might conceivably collapse under the weight of violent repression. But we are dealing with movements of millions, who can only be persuaded, not forced. We need the Arab radicals and Islamists to adopt a new outlook--not all of them, but enough to discourage the others. And what might bring about such a change? It would have to be something like the pressure that encouraged the communists of Eastern Europe to adopt new outlooks of their own: the pressure of a long Cold War (which was sometimes hot), culminating in the pressure of dissidents and critics at home, whose persistent campaigns and superior arguments made the Communists lose heart. And the long campaign against Arab radicalism and Islamicism that has now begun will have to resemble the Cold War in yet another respect. It will have to be a war of ideas--the liberal ideal against the ideal of a blocklike, unchanging society; the idea of freedom against the idea of absolute truth; the idea of diversity against the idea of purity; the idea of change and novelty against the idea of total stability; the idea of rational lucidity against the instinct of superstitious hatred.
I think he has got some great points. The analysis of the analog between Islamic fundamentalism and other 20th century antiliberal movements is deeply thougtful, and perhaps intrinsic.
But the very name of the 20th century antiliberal movements doesn't sound very convincing to me. The sentiment of antiliberal movements roots in some human nature, way more ancient and subconsciously intuitive than liberal rationalism. Berman sounds as if totalitarianism were also invented by the Western after they invented liberalism! I mean, wake up, Mr. Berman, when it comes to totalitarianism, you got to give some credit to ALL civilizations who have somehow contributed in their own ways.
Berman's argument is that each country producing movements of its own based on local mythologies and customs. But the shared idea of antiliberalisms summarized by Berman, a blocklike ultimate society achieved by an apocalyptic war against the inside enemy and their outside allies, is not new at all. Are they really intrigued by WWI, the symbol of failure of Western society? Or just a strike-back of mid ages in new form?
Of course, Westerns did bring some new elements of totalitarianisms to other cultures. Take China for example. The traditional totalitarianism in China focuses on hiearachy and conform. It were the new ideas from West, like historical determinism, apocalyptic war, internal cleansing, following of prophet leader, that combined with the traditional Chinese conformism to result in the Cultural Revolution, which in my opinion topped Hitler and Stalin in the totalitarian billboard.
But for the case of radical Islam, I have to say I don't know anything about its belief, history and culture. So I don't know to which degree it is influenced by the European antiliberalism. However, Berman's analysis did help me to clear some of my confusions about radical Islamic thoughts. They may appear to have some righteous reasons like religion, nationalism (which I disapprove in any form, but of course reasonable human irrationalness) and ecnomic suppression which they learned from Marxism, but in essence, they are antiliberalism. Their agenda, however pursuit of freedom it may seem, is against freedom.
So I agree with Berman's suggestion that the war against terrorists is not a war of merely military forces. It's a war of idea. People have to take it seriously, as serious as the Cold War. The only way to win this war, is to convince the Islamic world, that liberalism is a better option, for them. The way Bush administration handles the way is nothing but disastrous, creating more enemies rather than eliminating potential enemies. Liberalism triumphes in idea, not in military, in individual liberty, not in power or enforcement. 3月11日 "On Sexuality" by Li YinheI bought this book, "On Sexuality" by Li Yinhe（李银河《性的问题》） when I went back to China last year. Li is one of the most famous sociologists in China, and one of the two celebrities I can absolutely trust in China (the other one being 崔健 of course).
Her reputation and fame came largely because of her late husband, Wang Xiaobo(王小波), who happened to be my favorate modern Chinese author too. But nevertheless, she is credited as the pioneer of sexual study, especially homosexuality, and SM, in China. There was no real research in these fields before her. She started the study that opened Chinese people's mind, and has been an active advocate of gay rights and individual sexual liberty for many years.
She caused some controversy recently because of her comments on swing and sex orgy. This prompted a lot of criticisms, which I don't even want to mention here, 'cause they are just too disgustingly hypercite, and/or astonishingly intolerant. The only thing I want to say is, China is a totalitarian country not just because of the government, but more because of the people.
In "On Sexuality", Li introduced the academic ways of examining sexuality issues. She compared sexual norms in China and Western countries, discusssed the contemproary laws concerning sex, including both victim-involved and non-victim offsense, and those sexual activities that are legal but considered moral problems. She, as one of the most prominent feminists in China, continued by examining the issues in a feminism point of view. And finally, she introduced some sexuality theories, from social constructivism/essentialism, to Foucault, and Queer.
I learned a lot from this book. I can clearly see that Li has a typical liberal viewpoints, influenced deeply by American academic feminism. She quoted Foucault heavily, whose main point here is, the question is not what a person is, but what a person chooses. For example, we should not say someone is a homosexual, but someone chooses a homosexual life style.
This is really a big step towards freedom. It can relieve the burden of homosexuals (sorry I have to use this term, just for convinience) of self-identification and sometimes, self-denial and painful re-born. You can simply say, yeah, I am the same as everybody else, but I'd like make some choices that's different from other people. And hence comes back the dignity of humanity.
But, Foucault died in 1980s, so he probably didn't see the recent research results that show sex orientation is somehow rooted in gene. This of course can't completely turn over Foucault's theory, because there's also a lot of reseach claiming people's character is by some degree decided by gene, but we can still make free-willed choices, and are expected to and responsible for doing so.
As a result, I checked out two books from public library, "Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth", and "Power/Knowlege: Selected Interviews & other Writings 1972 - 1977", both by Foucault. The reading turned out to be devastatingly painful. I felt asleep within two minutes after I started reading the latter.
Fortunately, the other book is more readable. But that would be the topic of another blog.
3月7日 Dalai Lama and Stephen Hawkin on the UniverseMy company moved from mid-twon to Chelsea. Now I commute mainly by 7 train, from Flushing to Grand Central or Time Square. It's a 35 minute, quite-compared-to-E-train ride. So I started to borrow audio books from library and listen to them on subway.
The first two, coincidentally, are "the Universe in a Single Atom" by His Holiness Dalai Lama, and "the Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawkin. And please allow me to point out, atom is pretty much a scientific concept, which I am not really convinced that Dalai Lama understands from listening to his book, while the "nutshell" titile is derived from Hamlet's monologue: "I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space."
This probably also explains why I am writing in English now: Man romantifies unfamiliar things.
And that's of course also the reason I checked out these two books. I majored in Chemical Physics in the University of Science and Technology of China, from where I learned a lot about atoms, and some basics of modern physics. At the same time, I am always interested in Buddism thoughts, and the frontier of science.
To be more accurate, I am always haunted by THE question: who are we? And I look up in every possible direction for the answer. Christian and Marxism disappointed me. Now let's see what Buddism and science have to say.
Yet another disappointment. I listend to Dalai Lama's book first. It's nothing but a rough comparison between modern science and Buddism. He briefly introduced the progress of science in the 20th century, which is of course beneficial because most people's understanding of science are still in 19th century, and then happily announced how the new discoveries of science, e.g., the law of uncertainty, the theory of relativity, are somehow rapport of ancient Buddism. This didn't raise an eyebrow of mine at all. I've seen enough of this crap when I was a teen, all kinds of retarded claims that those Western scientific discoveries were already found and documented in a mysterious way in ancient China.
I am not denying the wisdom of Buddism, which observes the world in a very intuitive yet deeply thoughtful way. I also celebrate the revolution of 20th century science that corrected the conceited rationalism in 19th century, whose peak is Marxism, that simply sees all religion as superstition. But the difference between science and religion remains vivid. Science is based on clear, repeatable, defeasible statements, while religion consists of vague, open for intepretation, and self-righteous statements. You can always adjust previous intepretations and re-intepret the same old doctrines to reflect the new changes in the world.
The last part of the book is Dalai Lama's concern of the moral crisis of modern science, e.g., clone, nuclear weapon. That couldn't interest me either.
Actually Dalai Lama is probably the only religious leader in today's world whom I respect. I still respect him now, though this respect is probably due to my reverse psychology against Christianity and Chinese government. But this book, to me, is in some degree a dismatch to His Holiness.
Stephen Hawk's book, on the contrary, is a totally different experience to me. He talks about a lot of things that I don't understand, and some other difficulties, like my English listening comprehension, noise of subway, and especially inconvinience of pause and repeat reading, made me only understand a samll part of his book.
But that small part still amazed me. For example, the past in a wave function format, which means all past have possibly happened, just with different possibility, and the reality is only the sum of all these possibilties. And the end of time in a black hole, but when black hole evaporizes, the particals come out again, just without history.
I still need to listen to his book again. But here is my conclusion: if you are Buddist, please consider converting to a modern science lover. Think about it, all that religion can offer: explanation, rules, prediction, science can offer too. It may not be able to explain as much things as religion does, but it has an explanation of that inability of explanation: we need more time. And you think religion can explain everything? Then tell me, where is God from?
Anyway, I see all of them possible answers to THE question. But now, science seems most likely. And again, if you like Buddism wisdom, you got to read some modern science. That's more profound, more beautiful, more intelligence challenging, and if you want, more mysterious.
|
|
|
