Comment

Comment by 家 在這裡 4 hours ago

PPT Iconada： "theory of calling" & Julia Kristeva 1

[A: Affects P: Percepts P: Powers]

In the psychoanalytic sense, the "theory of calling" can be connected toJulia Kristeva's philosophy, particularly through her exploration of the relationship between the individual’s inner world (the unconscious) and the external social and linguistic structures (the symbolic order).

To understand this connection, it's essential to consider how Kristeva's ideas on language, subjectivity, and the semiotic/symbolic dichotomy relate to the concept of a "calling" or vocation.

The Semiotic and the Symbolic

Kristeva’s Semiotic: In Kristeva's theory, the semiotic is associated with the prelinguistic, bodily drives, and rhythms. It is the domain of emotions, the unconscious, and the instinctual. The semiotic is often repressed or regulated by the symbolic order, which is the realm of structured language, social norms, and laws.

The Symbolic: The symbolic is where identity, meaning, and social order are constructed through language and culture. It is the domain in which the individual finds a place within society by adhering to its rules and norms.

Calling as Semiotic and Symbolic: The concept of a "calling" can be seen as a dynamic interaction between the semiotic and symbolic realms. A calling often arises from deep, unconscious drives (semiotic) and is expressed or realized within the social and linguistic structures of society (symbolic). It can be understood as the individual’s attempt to align their deep inner desires and potentials with an external social role or vocation.

Desire and Drive

Unconscious Desire: In psychoanalytic terms, a calling could be seen as an expression of unconscious desires, which Kristeva associates with the semiotic. These desires may seek expression in a particular vocation or life path, driving the individual toward a certain type of work or creative endeavor.

Sublimation: Kristeva, influenced by Freud, would view the process of sublimation as key here. A calling could be seen as a form of sublimation, where unconscious drives and desires are channeled into socially acceptable and personally fulfilling activities, such as art, religion, or a profession. This process allows the individual to express their inner world while still operating within the symbolic order.

The Subject in Process

Kristeva’s Concept of the Subject in Process: Kristeva introduces the idea of the subject in process, emphasizing that subjectivity is never fixed but is always in a state of becoming, shaped by the constant interplay between the semiotic and symbolic. A calling can be understood within this framework as a key aspect of this process of becoming. It represents a way for the subject to navigate the tensions between their inner desires and the demands of the external world.

Comment by 家 在這裡 4 hours ago

Identity and Transformation: A calling can also be seen as a moment of transformation where the individual’s identity is reshaped or redefined. For Kristeva, identity is not static but fluid, and a calling might represent a significant shift or evolution in this ongoing process of identity formation.

Abjection and Transgression

Abjection: Kristeva’s concept of abjection involves the confrontation with what is excluded from the symbolic order—the chaotic, the bodily, the maternal, the semiotic. A calling might involve confronting these abject elements, integrating them into one’s life and work. For example, artists and creators often feel called to explore themes or ideas that are taboo or outside societal norms, bringing the abject into the symbolic through their work.

Transgression: A calling can also be seen as a form of transgression, where the individual pushes the boundaries of the symbolic order to include new meanings, roles, or identities. This transgressive aspect is central to Kristeva’s idea of poetic language, where language itself becomes a site of resistance and transformation.

The Maternal and the Feminine

The Maternal: Kristeva’s work on the maternal and the feminine, particularly in her exploration of the semiotic, can also relate to the idea of a calling. The maternal is associated with the presymbolic, the source of life and creativity, and often represents a powerful, unconscious force that drives individuals towards certain paths or vocations.

The Feminine as Creative Force: Kristeva’s association of the feminine with the semiotic can be linked to the idea of a calling as a creative force. The calling could be seen as the individual’s attempt to articulate and give form to these deep, often unarticulated desires and creative energies, aligning them with a socially recognized role or vocation.

Connecting the "Theory of Calling" with Kristeva’s Philosophy

In summary, the "theory of calling" in a psychoanalytic sense can be connected to Kristeva’s philosophy through several key concepts:

Semiotic Drives: A calling might originate from the semiotic realm, driven by unconscious desires and creative energies that seek expression in the symbolic order.

Sublimation and Identity: A calling could be seen as a sublimated expression of these drives, where the individual finds a socially acceptable outlet for their deepest desires, shaping their identity in the process.

Subject in Process: Kristeva’s notion of the subject in process highlights how a calling might represent a key moment in the ongoing formation and transformation of identity.

Abjection and Transgression: A calling may involve confronting abject elements or transgressing symbolic boundaries, integrating what is excluded or repressed into one’s life and work.

Through these connections, Kristeva’s philosophy provides a nuanced framework for understanding a calling as a complex interplay between the unconscious and the social, the semiotic and the symbolic.

Comment by 家 在這裡 4 hours ago

PPT Iconada： "theory of calling" & Julia Kristeva 2

[A: Affects P: Percepts P: Powers]

The concept of a "theory of calling" within psychoanalysis generally pertains to understanding an individual's sense of vocation, purpose, or intrinsic drive to pursue a particular path in life. This involves exploring the unconscious motivations, desires, and conflicts that shape one's professional and personal commitments. When examining how this theory connects withJulia Kristeva's philosophy, several key intersections emerge, particularly through her concepts of subjectivity, the semiotic and symbolic, and the formation of identity.

Subjectivity and the Formation of Identity

Theory of Calling—Focuses on how individuals develop a sense of purpose or vocation. Explores the internal motivations and unconscious factors that drive one's professional and personal choices.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Subjectivity: Kristeva emphasizes that subjectivity is not a fixed entity but is continuously shaped through interactions with language, culture, and the unconscious. Interplay of Semiotic and Symbolic: She posits that our identities are formed through the dynamic interaction between the semiotic (prelinguistic, emotional drives) and the symbolic (structured language, societal norms).

Connection:  The "theory of calling" aligns with Kristeva's view that an individual's sense of purpose is a product of both unconscious drives (semiotic) and societal structures (symbolic). Understanding one's calling involves navigating and integrating these two dimensions to form a coherent sense of self and purpose.

Comment by 家 在這裡 4 hours ago

Semiotic Drives and Intrinsic Motivation

Theory of Calling— Intrinsic motivation and passion are seen as key drivers behind an individual's vocation.  These motivations often stem from deepseated, sometimes unconscious, desires and needs.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Semiotic: Represents the realm of drives, emotions, and bodily expressions that precede structured language.  Role in Creativity and Innovation: The semiotic is crucial for creative processes, allowing for the emergence of new meanings and expressions beyond conventional structures.

Connection: The intrinsic motivations central to the "theory of calling" can be understood through Kristeva's concept of the semiotic. These drives push individuals toward creative and meaningful pursuits, often challenging societal norms and contributing to personal and cultural innovation.

Language, Communication, and Expressing the Calling

Theory of Calling— Communication about one's vocation involves articulating personal values, goals, and motivations. Language plays a crucial role in shaping and expressing one's sense of purpose.

Kristeva's Philosophy—Symbolic Order: Language structures our reality and social interactions, providing the framework within which we express and negotiate our identities.  Intertextuality: The idea that texts (or expressions) are influenced by and connected to other texts, reflecting the complex nature of meaningmaking.

Connection: Articulating one's calling requires navigating the symbolic order of language to express semiotic drives. Kristeva's notion of intertextuality suggests that our understanding and expression of our vocation are influenced by broader cultural narratives and discourses, highlighting the interconnectedness of individual purpose and societal context.

Conflict and Negotiation Between Semiotic and Symbolic

Theory of Calling:  Individuals may experience internal conflicts when their intrinsic motivations (semiotic) clash with societal expectations or norms (symbolic).  Resolving these conflicts is essential for achieving a sense of fulfillment and authenticity in one's vocation.

Comment by 家 在這裡 4 hours ago

Kristeva's Philosophy— Tension Between Semiotic and Symbolic: Kristeva highlights the ongoing negotiation between the disruptive, fluid semiotic forces and the stabilizing, structured symbolic order.  Abjection and BoundaryPushing: The semiotic can challenge and destabilize established norms, leading to creative transformations but also potential conflicts.

Connection: The "theory of calling" embodies the tension Kristeva describes, where individuals must reconcile their internal drives with external expectations. This negotiation process is crucial for developing a unique and authentic sense of purpose, reflecting Kristeva's emphasis on the dynamic interplay between different aspects of subjectivity.

Creativity and Transformation

Theory of Calling: Pursuing one's vocation often involves creative expression and the transformation of personal and professional landscapes.  Creativity is seen as a pathway to fulfilling one's sense of purpose.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Revolution in Poetic Language: Kristeva explores how avantgarde and poetic language disrupt conventional structures, allowing for new forms of expression and meaning. Creativity as Liberation: The semiotic dimension fosters innovation and the breaking of boundaries, essential for cultural and personal transformation.

Connection：The creative aspects of pursuing a calling resonate with Kristeva's ideas on how semiotic forces drive innovation and transformation. Engaging in creative endeavors as part of one's vocation aligns with her belief in the liberating potential of the semiotic to challenge and redefine existing structures.

Ethics and Subjective Freedom

Theory of Calling: Emphasizes personal fulfillment and ethical alignment with one's work. Encourages individuals to pursue paths that resonate with their deepest values and desires.

Kristeva's Philosophy— Affirmative Ethics: Kristeva advocates for embracing difference, creativity, and the fluid nature of subjectivity as ethical imperatives. Subjective Freedom: The ability to continually redefine oneself and one's purposes in response to changing internal and external conditions.

Connection:  The ethical dimension of the "theory of calling" is mirrored in Kristeva's affirmative ethics, which prioritize personal authenticity and the continuous evolution of identity. Pursuing a calling, therefore, becomes not just a professional endeavor but an ethical journey towards selfrealization and creative expression.

Summary

The "theory of calling" in psychoanalysis and Julia Kristeva's philosophy intersect through their shared focus on the dynamic interplay between internal drives and external structures in shaping identity and purpose. Kristeva's concepts of the semiotic and symbolic provide a nuanced framework for understanding the unconscious motivations and societal influences that underpin an individual's sense of vocation.

Furthermore, her emphasis on creativity, subjectivity, and the transformative potential of language aligns closely with the pursuit of a meaningful and authentic calling. By integrating Kristeva's insights, the "theory of calling" can be enriched with a deeper understanding of how personal purpose is negotiated, expressed, and actualized within the broader cultural and linguistic context.

Comment by 家 在這裡 on Wednesday

爱垦網·高阶创造力挑战机械人系列：情动叙事

研究叙事的感性（情动）意义涉及到多个学术领域，包括文学、文化研究、心理学、认知科学等领域。近年来，以下五个课题受到较多关注，并有一些新发现：

情感转向与叙事的情感作用：随着“情感 / 情动转向”（Affective Turn）的发展，学者们越来越重视叙事中情感的传递与共鸣。研究发现，叙事既是信息传递的工具，也是情感体验的媒介，影响了受众的感知和认知，尤其是如何通过情感叙事触发人们的同理心和情感认同。

叙事疗法与自我认同构建：叙事疗法的研究显示，通过个人叙述自己的故事，个体能够重新组织自我认知与身份。学者们发现，叙事不仅可以治愈心理创伤，还能在创造意义、塑造个体自我认同方面发挥作用，特别是如何通过重塑叙事帮助人们克服生活中的困境。

地方感性与叙事地理学：段义孚的“地方感性”理论对叙事的空间感知影响研究有很大贡献。叙事地理学研究发现，叙事不仅反映了故事的时间进程，还与空间体验紧密相连，塑造了人们对地方的情感归属和文化认同，尤其在地方文创和旅游叙事中，这一研究有了较大的突破。

叙事与集体记忆的共创：在社会学和文化研究中，集体记忆和叙事的关系成为研究热点。通过集体叙事，群体能够共同创造并传递他们的历史记忆和文化经验。学者们研究了叙事如何在不同文化背景下，帮助群体维持和重塑其共同记忆，尤其在数字化时代，叙事共创的形式不断演变。

认知叙事学与情感认知的关系：认知叙事学（Cognitive Narratology）研究表明，叙事不仅影响情感体验，还与认知过程高度关联。通过叙事，人们能够理解复杂的情感和心理状态。近年来的研究表明，叙事的结构和内容可以影响个体的情感理解，特别是在文学作品和影视作品中的人物情感刻画对观众或读者情感反应的影响。

这些课题都揭示了叙事不仅仅是传递信息的方式，更是一种复杂的感性体验工具，通过情感、空间、记忆和认知的交织来塑造个体和集体经验。

Comment by 家 在這裡 on Sunday

爱垦網评注·高阶创造力挑战机械人系列：关系诗学元素

卢卡斯（George Lucas）的电影系列《星球大战》，深受坎贝尔 （Joseph Cambell） 的《千面英雄》（The Hero with a Thousand Faces）等著作影响，特别是其中的英雄旅程结构。在这个叙事框架下，电影体现了大量的原型神话元素和象征性情节。

然而，如果从埃德奥尔·格里桑（Édouard Glissant）的关系诗学角度来看，《星球大战》也可被解读为一个包含关系诗学元素的文本；值得从关系诗学的角度重新审视并揭示其跨文化的复杂关系网络和文化混合的力量。

《星球大战》系列电影中所展现的文化多样性、身份流动、跨文化的互动，以及不同种族和文化的交汇，展现了复杂的关系性网络。银河系的宇宙不只是科技和冒险的舞台，它也是一个关系性构建的空间，反映了当代社会中文化、权力与身份的流动与再造。因此，在被解读为英雄神话的经典文本的同时，它同样这为理解其更深层的社会、文化和情动维度提供了新的视角。

多样性与文化混合性

关系诗学中的多样性：格里桑的关系诗学强调多样性与文化混合性，主张通过不同文化的交汇与碰撞，打破同质化的文化形态，形成多元化的文化表达。在《星球大战》宇宙中，众多种族、文化和星球彼此交织，形成了一个复杂、多元的社会结构。无论是绝地武士的哲学、黑武士（Darth Vader）的道德挣扎，还是银河系中不同族群的共存与冲突，都是多元文化相互影响与混合的表现。

跨文化交流：不同星球和种族的文化在星际战争中交汇，形成了混合性和互联性，正如格里桑所描述的关系性。电影中的银河系不仅展示了科技、信仰、权力和哲学等不同方面的多样性，还通过角色之间的互动、联盟和敌对关系，表现了文化交融和关系性的动态过程。

流动性与身份的重构

身份的流动与多重性：关系诗学中的一个核心概念是身份不是固定的，而是在交互和关系中被不断重构。在《星球大战》系列中，许多角色的身份经历了复杂的转变和发展。比如安纳金·天行者（Anakin Skywalker）从绝地武士转变为黑武士的过程，卢克·天行者（Luke Skywalker）从无名少年变为银河英雄的旅程，都是在复杂的关系网络中构建和重构身份的体现。这种身份的流动性符合格里桑的关系诗学，即个体在复杂的文化和历史交汇中生成并演变。

跨越固定边界：电影中的银河帝国和反抗军代表着一种跨越固定边界的动态张力。帝国的专制象征着一种固定的秩序，而反抗军和绝地武士则代表了不断重构的关系网络，通过交互与抗争，试图打破这个僵化的秩序。

全球化与关系的宇宙

关系宇宙的构建：《星球大战》系列中的银河系本身可以看作是一个关系宇宙，不同文化、种族、星球间的相互作用与斗争，正是格里桑所讲的关系诗学中的动态交互。格里桑认为，世界不是由孤立的实体构成，而是通过复杂的关系网络形成整体。《星球大战》的叙事正是通过这种跨文化、跨种族的交互网络，展现了宇宙中不同力量的相互影响与冲突，形成了一个复杂而丰富的叙事空间。

宇宙多样性与反殖民解读：从关系诗学的角度，《星球大战》还可以被解读为一种反抗帝国霸权的叙事，类似于格里桑的后殖民思想。银河帝国象征着一种压迫性的、殖民式的统治，而反抗军则代表着多样性和解放的力量。通过这种对抗，电影中的关系性不断被重新定义，展现了格里桑所描述的文化间的复杂交互与抵抗。

语言、权力与情感交互

语言与文化的关系：关系诗学强调语言不仅是一种表达工具，还是文化交流与认同的重要载体。在《星球大战》中，不同星球、种族使用不同的语言或符号系统，这些语言的多样性成为了不同文化之间沟通与误解的象征。电影通过语言和符号展现了不同文明间的关系性，语言的使用也反映了权力和情感的互动，比如尤达大师（Yoda）的言语风格与智慧象征了某种文化传承的精髓。

情感与关系性：电影中的亲情、友情和师徒关系体现了情感在关系性中的核心地位。卢克与黑武士的父子关系、哈利森·福特（Han Solo）和莱娅公主（Princess Leia）的爱情等情感线索，都是通过关系网络展现个人和群体的情感复杂性。这种情感交互不仅塑造了个体的命运，还构成了电影情节发展的动力，符合关系诗学中情感交融与文化联系的主题。

Comment by 家 在這裡 on September 5, 2024 at 2:46pm

To Sir With Love (電影"吾愛吾師"主題曲)

Chaka Khan (夏卡康)

Those schoolgirl days 那些在女子學校的日子

of telling tales and biting nails are gone 說著故事、咬著指甲的歲月已逝去

But in my mind 但是我知道

I know they will still live on and on 這段歲月將依然活在我心中

But how do you thank someone 但是妳該如何感謝

Who has taken you from crayons to perfume? 那個從蠟筆到香水一直引導妳的人

It isn't easy but I'll try 那並不容易，但我願意試試

 

If you wanted the sky 如果你要整片天空

I would write across the sky in letters 我會在天空上寫滿字

That would soar a thousand feet high 那將會有一千英呎高

'To Sir with love' 寫著"吾愛吾師"

 

The time has come for closing books 闔上課本的時刻已來到

and long last looks must end 最後又最久的一瞥還是要結束

And as I leave 當我離開

I know that I am leaving my best friend 我明白我將離開我最好的朋友

A friend who taught me 一個教導我

right from wrong and weak from strong 分辨對錯、從軟弱變堅強的朋友

That's a lot to learn 要學的東西還很多

but what can I give you in return? 但我能送你什麼來報答你呢？

 

If you wanted the moon 如果你想要月亮

I would try to make a start 我會努力試試看

But I would rather you let me give my heart 但我寧可你讓我把心獻給你

'To Sir with love' 寫上"吾愛吾師"

Oh send all my darling love 獻出我所有誠摯的愛

 

If you wanted the moon 如果你想要月亮

I would try to make a start 我會努力試試看

But I would rather you let me give my heart 但我寧可你讓我把心獻給你

'To Sir with love' 寫上"吾愛吾師"

Comment by 家 在這裡 on August 23, 2024 at 8:07pm

趙毅衡·李安宅與中國最早的符號學著作《意義學》

摘要: 李安宅是中國符號學的前驅人物，河北遷西人，年輕時執教於燕京大學社會學系，是中國人類學研究的開創者，藏學的奠基者之一。1930年英國學者瑞恰慈來清華大學與燕京大學講學並研究孟子學說，他與費孝通作為助手參與，由此接觸到歐洲的符號研究，寫出了《意義學》這本書。這是20世紀80年代之前中國唯一的符號學著作，有重要的歷史價值。

李安宅 (1900－1985 年) 先生，中國社會人類學研究的創始人之一，國內藏學的奠基者。

但很少有人知道，他也是中國符號學研究的先行者，是現代中國最早的一本討論符號意義活動規律的書《意義學》的作者。李安宅先生實際上是四川幾所主要大學 (四川大學、西南民族大學、四川師范大學) 的創校元老。今年是李安宅先生120年雙甲子生辰，謹以此文紀念這位幾乎被人忘卻的中國學術先驅者。

李安宅是河北遷西人，1923 年就讀於齊魯大學文學系，1926 年起任燕京大學社會學系助教。在這個階段他開始了中國典籍的現代解讀工作，名著《〈儀禮〉與〈禮記〉的社會學研究》出版於1931 年。而當時，另外一位學者也在做類似的工作，用英語辨義中國經籍概念，那就是應邀到清華大學 (1930 年春季) 與燕京大學( 1930 年秋季) 任教的著名英國理論家、「新批評」的奠基人之一瑞恰慈 ( I. A. Ｒichards，李安宅書中譯為「呂嘉慈」)。據李安宅介紹，他在燕京大學開兩門課: 「意義的邏輯」與「文藝批評」。實際上他到中國來不僅是教書，更是凖備他關於中國意義哲學的著作《孟子論心》。

對一個不懂漢語，更不懂中國古籍的西方人，這個仔細辨析中國哲學的工作，恐怕膽子太大。

但是不久(1932 年) 他就在英國出版了《孟子論心: 復合定義實驗》(Mencius on Mind: Experiments in Multiple Definition) 一書，逐句翻譯《孟子》的主要章節，並討論「心」「性」等在西語中非常難說清楚的術語，以及在不同語境中意義的變化。

此書可以說是最早對中國經典進行細讀，並且概念辨析成功的書。可以想像，這本書的寫作，需要中國助手幫助，當時擔任燕京大學「國學研究所編譯員」的青年學者李安宅，以及當時燕京大學社會學系的學生費孝通，被聘請擔任這個工作。瑞恰慈在《孟子論心》的扉頁上，有對這二位中國青年學人的致謝。

從此後的結果看來，李安宅與費孝通的協助，引向了雙贏的局面。瑞恰慈大有所得，前面已經說過; 李安宅通過這次合作，熟讀了瑞恰慈和其他幾位歐洲學者的理論，寫出了幾本書，其中之一即商務印書館1934年出版的《意義學》。

這本書現在已經絕版，李安宅一生著作等身，大部分書都再版過，這本書只有1943年遷到陪都重慶的商務印書館重印過一個「渝版」，1991年他去世後出版的《李安宅社會學遺著選》中作為《語言、意義、美學》的一部分出版。現在幾乎不為人知，連從事意義理論研究的學者也不太知道，故筆者著此文，以彌補學術史上的遺珠之憾。知者甚少的重要原因是李安宅一生學術主攻方向為社會人類學，尤其是藏學，沒有在這方向上繼續探研。但是，從《意義學》書中不斷提到的人類學著作來看，符號意義問題的研究對他的學術生涯大有助益。

「符號學」這個中文詞，是趙元任在1926 年一篇題為「符號學大綱」的長文中提出來的。趙先生寫到:「符號這東西是很老的了，但拿一切的符號當一種題目來研究它的種種性質跟用法的原則，這事情還沒有人做過。」［1］(P178) 不僅在中國沒人做過，在世界上也沒有人做過。在20世紀20年代，國際學術界的交流還很不發達。索緒爾提出semiologie，到 30 年代才有布拉格學派穆卡洛夫斯基等人的響應。皮爾斯的semiotics 學說，要到30 年代後期才有莫裡斯等人的發揚光大。趙元任雖然從哈佛任教歸來，卻不知道這兩個詞，因此在此文中說，他提議的「符號學」，可譯為英文詞symbolics、symbology 或 symbolology［1］(P177) ，由此可見，趙元任是獨立地提出這門學科的。

實際上符號學還有好幾位獨立提創者。在20 世紀初，有維爾比夫人(Victoria Lady Welby) 提出sensifics; 奧格登( C·K·Ogden) 與瑞恰慈在1922 年《意義之意義》(The Meaning of Meaning)一書中提出的Science of Symbolism; 圖像學家潘諾夫斯基( Erwin Panofsky) 在 1924 年提出的「符號形式論」(Perspectives of Symbolic Form) ，以及德國哲學家卡西爾(Ernst Cassirer) 在他的三卷本巨著《符號形式哲學》( Philosophy of Symbolic Form，1923－ 1929 年) 提出的符號體系( 稱為Symbolism) ，他的學說在他的女弟子蘇珊·朗格(Susanne Langer) 的符號美學那裡得到發揚光大。

（趙毅衡·李安宅與中國最早的符號學著作《意義學》；河北師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版) 2020年第5期；作者單位： 四川大學文學與新聞學院，四川成都 610064；關鍵詞:李安宅;《意義學》; 符號學）

Comment by 家 在這裡 on August 22, 2024 at 8:49pm

一般符號學史著作，沒有把他們算進來，因為他們大多數人是用symbolism一詞作為學科名稱。

其實sign 與 symbol 在許多情況下( 如在瑞恰慈、潘諾夫斯基、卡西爾筆下) 同義，所有這些都是「符號學」的同義異體詞，因為它們都是研究意義的學說。符號被認為是攜帶著意義的感知，符號是用來傳達意義的，意義必須由符號來承載，才能表達、傳播、解釋。因此符號學就是意義學。

在《意義學》中，李安宅就把三套命名體系結合起來。他說，他討論的「意義學」，是Study of Meaning，書中也稱為 symbolism、semasiology。這最後一詞來自希臘文semaino(「意為」「意思為」)，與上面提到的索緒爾用的「符號學」 semiologie 以及皮爾斯用的 semiotics 同出一源，實際上是同源同義詞。用semasiology( 符號學、語義學) ，這看來不會是他自己提出的，而是瑞恰慈的建議，雖然我沒有查出來瑞恰慈的巨量著作中用過此詞。馮友蘭先生為李安宅此書所做的序中說:

 「意義學是呂嘉慈所提倡的學問」［2］(P9)。這是一個旁證: 瑞恰慈認為他們在研究的symbolism，就是「符號學」。

瑞恰慈本人在《意義之意義》一書中，高度贊揚了皮爾斯的符號學意義理論。當時國際學術界尚未成形，學術交流相當困難，與今日的網絡世界不可同日而語。作為劍橋著名學者，掌握的各種語言的學術資料都比較多，瑞恰慈與奧格登可能處於世界學術的中心地位，眼界最為開闊，對同代學者的理論廣為涉獵。 《意義之意義》一書的「附章D」，花很大篇幅專章詳論胡塞爾、羅素、弗雷格、皮爾斯等人。英美學界當時尚不熟悉的胡塞爾，被他們稱為「研究符號問題最有名的現代思想家」; 已經去世的測量局職員皮爾斯，也被稱為「最複雜最堅決地處理符號及其意義問題」的學者; 他們也承認索緒爾在法國影響正在擴大，雖然他們對索緒爾評價不高。

李安宅這本書的內容相當分明: 緒論部分討

論現代符號學借以立足的「意義三角」，然後每一部分介紹一個人的理論，分別是皮亞傑 ( Jean Piaget，李安宅譯為 「皮阿什」，或許更准一些)的兒童意義能力發展過程理論，語言學的意義理論，瑞恰慈的意義理論，「信仰」的意義討論。

其中引用了不少人類學家馬林諾夫斯基( Bronislaw Kaspar Malinowsky，李安宅譯為 「馬林儒斯基」) 以及弗雷澤 ( James Frazer，李安宅譯為「傅雷茲爾」) 的《金枝》。所有這些論述，基本上是圍繞著一個人類學者討論意義問題的需要展開的，其中介紹最詳細的皮亞傑的發展心理學，不僅對人類學非常有用，在20世紀60年代也成為結構主義符號學的支柱之一，李安宅置大篇幅於此，可謂獨具只眼。從今天的眼光看，此書的主體部分介紹多於分析。但是在符號意義理論研究初創時期，這樣介紹多人思想的著作，難能可貴。

李安宅這本書最令人感興趣的，是不斷引用中國哲學典籍，以及生動的中國詩詞，來說明一些當時的中國學子可能覺得難懂的問題。此書第一章討論「意義三角」，就引用道家和佛家的意象理論，來說明符號的功能。他指出道家的「非可道」，與禪宗的「不可說」看法都是對的。

對於意義而言，在「沒有更精的符號」時，任何符號都是無奈采用，卻又無此不可的工具:

 「思想不可傳達，無法記錄，於是用語言文字作為符號。」［2］(P6) 因為 「思想是一回事，所思是一回事，所籍以思又是一回事，所籍以表思的是符號」［2］(P48) 。這是對符號功能相當精確的描述。

但是采用符號承載意義，這一步形成了真正的人類社會。李安宅引用馬林諾夫斯基的看法，認為這個意義三角，「是文明社會才有的現象」。卡西爾說「人是使用符號的動物」; 馬林諾夫斯基進一步推論為「文明人是使用符號時言－物意三分的產物」。如果沒有文明實際上不能算人類，那麼李安宅轉述的馬林諾夫斯基的說法，應當更准確。

李安宅引用中國典籍，妙處令人拍案稱奇。

例如在解答符號對意義之必須時，李安宅引用《漢書·藝文志》所列老子弟子文子的話「道五行無聲，聖人強為之形，以一字為一名」［2］(P46)。「聖人」為了社群「強為之」，強迫給「道」一個形態，因此「一字一名」是社會規約的產物。再例如在說明「類推比喻」(analogical metaphor) 時，李安宅引用《孟子》所載的孟子與告子的辯論「性猶杞柳也，義猶桮棬也; 以人性為仁義，猶以杞柳為桮棬」［2］(P40)。《意義學》用這種方式，非常生動地引導讀者如何理解這些附在問題。

但是李安宅絕非泥古不化之輩。他不留情面地指責把文字當做聖旨、當做符籙，「就是不當做符號」的各種古人看法。他指責某些經學家以文本發送者的「原意」為意義時，引了曾鞏的詩句「況排千年非，獨抱六經意」。他批評曾鞏的看法是意義源頭迷信: 「在一般好古之士看來，恐怕還是《六經》本身就是《六經意》，用不著有個《六經》再有個《六經》所傳達的或《六經》所被解釋的意義。」［2］(P47)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page