The Light of City: Freedom by Thai Hoa Pham


陳楨的詩《苦笑》


橘子色的海灣

飛鳥依然在覓食

看不見烤红的落日

很快和牠的雄心背道而陸沉

詩人看得清矛盾

却找不到平衡點挺住

墜下一點都不有趣

一點都作假不得

任何好詞都来不及尋找

更不適宜臨時實驗新手法

来炫耀自己僵固的苦笑

(12.5.2007)

Rating:
  • Currently 4.66667/5 stars.

Views: 241

Comment

You need to be a member of Iconada.tv 愛墾 網 to add comments!

Join Iconada.tv 愛墾 網

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 14, 2024 at 4:10pm

It was stylistic congruency that was manipulated in a couple of experiments, conducted 14At the same time, however, one might consider how marble, one of the most highly prized building materials is in some sense incongruent, given the rich textured patterning of the veined appearance of the surface is typically perfectly smooth to the touch. both online and in the laboratory by Siefkes and Arielli (2015).

These researchers had their participants expli citly concentrate on and evaluate the style of the buildings shown in one of two architectural styles (baroque or modern- a short video showing five baroque build ings; there were also a short video, focusing on five mod ern buildings instead). Their results revealed that the buildings were rated as looking more balanced, more co herent, and to a certain degree, more complete,15 when viewed while listening to music that was congruent (e.g., baroque architecture with baroque music- specifically Georg Philipp Telemann’s, Concerto Grosso in D major, TWV 54:D3 (1716)) rather than incongruent (e.g., bar oque architecture with Philip Glass track from the soundtrack to the movie Koyaanisqatsi).

Before moving on, though, it is worth noting that in this study, as in many of the other studies reported in this section, there is a possibility that the design of the experiments themselves may have resulted in the partici pants concerned paying rather more attention to the at mospheric/environmental cues (and possibly also their congruency) than is normally likely to be the case when, as was mentioned earlier, the architecture itself fades into the background.

Ecological validity may, in other words, have been compromised to a certain degree. One of the other examples of incongruency that one often comes across is linked to the growing interest in biophilic design. As Pallasmaa (1996, p. 41) notes: “A walk through a forest is invigorating and healing due to 15These were the anchors on three of the bipolar semantic differential scales used in this study.

the constant interaction of all sense modalities; Bachelard speaks of ‘the polyphony of the senses’. The eye collaborates with the body and the other senses. One’s sense of reality is strengthened and articulated by this constant interaction. Architecture is essentially an extension of nature into the man-made realm …”16 No wonder, then, that many designers have been exploring the benefits of bringing elements of nature into interior spaces in order to boost the occupants’ mood and aid relaxation (Spence, 2021).

However, one has to ask whether the benefits of adding the sounds of a tropical rainforest to a space such as the shopping area of Glasgow airport, say (Treasure, 2007), really outweigh the cognitive dissonance likely elicited by hearing such sounds in such an incongruous setting? Similarly, a jungle soundscape was incorporated into the children’s section of Harrods London Department store a few years ago (Harrods’ Toy Kingdom- The Sound Agency | Sound Branding” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUUG6VvFKQ).

Nature soundscapes have also been introduced into Audi car salesrooms, not to mention BP petrol station toilet facilities (Bashford, 2010;Treasure, 2007). It is worth noting here that given the important role that congruency has been shown to play at the level of multisensory object/ event perception, there is currently a stark paucity of research that has systematically investigated the relevance/ importance of congruency at the level of multisensory ambient, or environmental, cues. As the quotes earlier in this section make clear, it is something to which some architects are undoubtedly sensitive, and on which they already have an opinion. Yet the relevant underpinning research still needs to be conducted.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 13, 2024 at 8:02pm

Ultimately, therefore, while the congruency of atmos pheric/environmental cues can be defined in various ways, and while incongruency is normally negatively valenced (because it is hard to process),17 issues of (in)congruency may often simply not be an issue for the occupants of specific environments. This may either be because the latter simply do not pay attention to the at
mospheric/environmental cues (and hence do not register their incongruency) and/or because they have no reason to believe that the stimuli should be combined in the first place.16

The value of connecting with nature in architectural design practice was stressed by an advertorial for an arctic hideaway that suggests that: “True luxury today is connecting with nature and feeling that your senses work again” as appeared in an article in Blue Wings magazine (December 2019, p. 38). 17

It should, though, be remembered, that sometimes incongruency may be precisely what is wanted. Just take the following quote regarding the crossmodal contrast of thermal heat combined with
visual coolness from Japan as but one example: “In the summer the householder likes to hang a picture of a waterfall, a mountain stream, or similar view in the Tokonama and enjoy in its contemplation a feeling of coolness.” (Tetsuro, 1955, p. 16).

Sensory dominance


One common feature of configurations of multisensory stimuli that are in some sense incongruent is sensory dominance. And very often, under laboratory conditions, this tends to be vision that dominates (e.g., Hutmacher, 2019; Meijer et al., 2019; Posner et al., 1976). Under conditions of multisensory conflict, the normally more reliable sense sometimes completely dominates the
experience of the other senses, as when wine experts can be tricked into thinking that they are drinking red or rosé wine simply by adding some red food dye to white wine (Wang & Spence, 2019). Similarly, people’s assess ment of building materials has also been shown to be dominated by the visual rather than by the feel (Wastiels, Schifferstein, Wouters, & Heylighen, 2013; see also Karana, 2010).

At the same time, however, while we are largely visually dominant, the other senses can also sometimes drive our behaviour. For instance, according to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, many people will apparently refuse to check in to a hotel if there is funny smell in the lobby (Pacelle, 1992). Such admittedly anecdotal observations, were they to be backed up by robust empirical data, would then support the notion that olfactory atmospheric cues can, at least under
certain conditions, also dominate in terms of determining our approach-avoidance behaviour. Mean
while, a growing number of diners have also reported how they will sometimes leave a restaurant if the noise is too loud (see Spence, 2014, for a review; Wagner, 2018), resonating with the quote from Blesser and Salter (2007) that we came across a little earlier.

One other potentially important issue to bear in mind here concerns the “assumption of unity”, or
coupling/binding priors that constitute an important factor modulating the extent of crossmodal binding in the case of multisensory object/event perception, according to the literature on the currently popular Bayesian causal inference (see Chen & Spence, 2017; Rohe, Ehlis,&Noppeney, 2019, for reviews). Coupling priors can be thought of as the internalized long-term statistics of the environment (e.g., Girshick, Landy, & Simoncelli, 2011).

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 12, 2024 at 5:12pm

Does it, I wonder, make sense to suggest that we have such priors concerning the unification of environmental/atmospheric cues? Or might it be, perhaps, that in a context in which we are regularly exposed to incongruent environmental/atmospheric multisensory cues- just think of how music is played from loudspeakers without any associated visual referent- that out priors concerning whether to integrate what we see, hear, smell, and feel will necessarily be related, in any meaningful sense, may well be reduced substantially.

See Badde Navarro, and Landy (2020) and Gau and Noppeney  (2016) on the role of context in the strength of the  common-source priors multisensory binding.

Hence, no matter whether one wants to create a tranquil space (Pheasant, Horoshenkov, Watts, & Barret, 2008)or one that arouses (Mattila & Wirtz, 2001), the senses interact as they do in various other configurations and situations (e.g., Jahncke, Eriksson, & Naula, 2015; Jiang,  Masullo, & Maffei, 2016). There are, in fact, numerous examples where the senses have been shown to interact in  the experience and rating of urban environments (e.g., Ba &Kang,2019; Van Renterghem & Botteldooren, 2016).

Crossmodal correspondences in architectural design practice The field of synaesthetic design has grown rapidly in  recent years (e.g., Haverkamp, 2014; Merter, 2017;  Spence, 2012b). According to architectural historian, Alberto Pérez-Gómez, mentioned earlier, the Philips Pavilion designed by Le Corbusier for the 1958 Brussels world’s fair (Fig. 10) attempted to deliver a multisensory experience, or atmosphere by means of “forced” synaesthesia (Pérez-Gómez, 2016,p.19).18

The interior audiovisual environment was mostly designed by Le Corbusier and Iannis Xenakis (see Sterken, 2007). From those descriptions that have survived there were many  coloured lights and projections and a looping soundscape that was responsive to people’s  ovement through the  space (Lootsma, 1998; Muecke & Zach, 2007). 

18 Though Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 65) seems to be using a rather unconventional definition of synaesthesia, as a little later in his otherwise excellent work, he defines perceptual synaesthesia as “the integrated sensory modalities”, Pérez-Gómez (2016, p. 65). The  majority of cognitive neuroscientists would, I presume, take this as a  definition of multisensory perception, rather than synaesthesia. Synaesthesia, note, is typically defined as the automatic elicitation  of an idiosyncratic concurrent, not normally experienced, in response  to the presence of an inducing stimulus (Grossenbacher & Lovelace,  2001).

True to his oculocentric approach, mentioned at the start of this piece, Le Corbusier apparently concentrated  on the visual aspects of the “Poème Electronique”, the multimedia show that was projected inside the pavilion.

Meanwhile, his site manager, Iannis Xenakis created “Concret PH”- the soundscape, broadcast over 300 loudspeakers, that accompanied it. It is, though, unclear how much connection there actually was between the auditory and visual components of this multimedia presentation. The notion of parallel, but unconnected, stimulation to eye and ear comes through in Xenakis’ quote that: “we are capable of speaking two languages at the same time.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 11, 2024 at 3:31pm

One is addressed to the eyes, the other to the ears.” (Varga,  1996,p.114).Moreover, inhis laterwork(e.g.,Polytopes),  Xenakis pursued the idea of creating a total dissociation be tween visual and aural perception in large abstract sound and light installations (Sterken, 2007, p. 33).

 At several points throughout his book Pérez-Gómez (2016), stresses the importance of “synaesthesia” to architecture, without, unfortunately, ever really quite defining what he means by the term. All one finds are quotes such as the following: “primordial synesthetic perception”,  p. 11;  “perception is primordially  synesthetic”, p. 20; “synaesthesia as the primary modality  of human perception”, p. 71. Pérez-Gómez (2016, p.  149) draws heavily on Merleau-Ponty’s (1962, p. 235) Phenomenology of Perception, quoting lines such as:

 “The senses translate each other without any need of an interpreter, they are mutually comprehensible without the intervention of any idea.” A few pages later he cites Heidegger “truths as correspondence” (Pérez-Gómez,  2016, p. 162). This does, though, sound more like a de scription of the ubiquitous crossmodal correspondences  (Marks, 1978; Spence, 2011) than necessarily fitting with  contemporary definitions of synaesthesia, though the distinction between the two phenomena admittedly remains fiercely contested (e.g., Deroy & Spence, 2013; Sathian & Ramachandran, 2020). Abath (2017) has done a great job of highlighting the confusion linked to Merleau-Ponty’s incoherent use of the term synaesthesia, that has, in turn, gone on to “infect” the writings of other architectural theorists, such as Pérez-Gómez (2016).

Talking of synaesthetic design may then be something  of a misnomer (Spence, 2015), the fundamental idea here is to base one’s design decisions on the sometimes surprising connections between the senses that we all share, such as, for example, between high-pitched sounds and small, light, fast-moving objects (e.g.,  Spence, 2011, 2012a). It is important to highlight the fact  that while these crossmodal correspondences are often confused with synaesthesia, they actually constitute a superficially similar, but fundamentally quite different empirical phenomenon (see Deroy & Spence, 2013).

We have already come across a number of examples of crossmodal correspondences being incorporated,  knowingly or otherwise, in design decisions. Just think about the use of temperature-hue correspondences  (Tsushima et al., 2020; see Spence, 2020a, for a review).

The lightness-elevation mapping (crossmodal correspondence) might also prove useful from a design perspective (Sunaga, Park, & Spence, 2016). And colour taste and sound-taste correspondences have already been incorporated into the design of multisensory experiential spaces (e.g., Spence et al., 2014; see also Adams &  Doucé, 2017; Adams & Vanrie, 2018). Once one accepts  the importance of crossmodal correspondences to environmental design, then this represents an additional level  at which sensory atmospheric cues may be judged as  congruent (e.g., see Spence et al., 2014). One of the important questions that remains for future research,  though, is to determine whether there may be a priority of one kind of cross modal congruency over others when they are manipulated simultaneously.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 8, 2024 at 5:39pm


Conclusions

While it would seem unrealistic that the dominance, or hegemony (Levin, 1993), of the visual will be overturned any time soon, that does not mean that we should not do our best to challenge it. As critic David Michael Levin puts it: “I think it is appropriate to challenge the hegemony of vision– the ocular-centrism of our culture.

And I think we need to examine very critically the character of vision that predominates today in our world. We urgently need a diagnosis of the psychosocial path ology of everyday seeing– and a critical understanding of ourselves as visionary beings.” (Levin, 1993, p. 205).

While not specifically talking about architecture, what we can all do is to adopt a more multisensory perspective and be more sensitive to the way in which the senses interact, be it in architecture or in any other as pect of our everyday experiences.

By designing experiences that congruently engage more of the senses we may be better able to enhance the quality of life while at the same time also creating more immersive, engaging, and memorable multisensory experiences (Bloomer & Moore, 1977; Gallace & Spence, 2014; Garg, 2019; Spence, 2021; Ward, 2014). Stein and Meredith (1993, p. xi), two of the foremost multisensory
neuroscientists of the last quarter century, summarized this idea when they suggesting in the preface to their in fluential volume The merging of the senses that: “The in tegration of inputs from different sensory modalities not only transforms some of their individual characteristics, but does so in ways that can enhance the quality of life.

Integrated sensory inputs produce far richer experiences than would be predicted from their simple coexistence or the linear sum of their individual products.” There is growing interest across many fields of endeavour in design that moves beyond this one dominant, or perhaps even overpowering, sense (Lupton & Lipps, 2018). The aim is increasingly to design for experience rather than merely for appearance. At the same time, however, it is also important to note that progress has been slow in translating the insights from the academic field of multisensory research to the world of architec
tural design practice, as noted by licensed architect Joy Monice Malnar when writing about her disappointment with the entries at the 2015 Chicago Architecture Biennial.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on February 8, 2024 at 5:39pm

There, she writes: “So, where are we? What is the current state of the art? Sadly, the current research on multisensory environments appearing in journals such as The Senses & Society does not appear to be impacting artists and architects participating in the Chicago Biennial. Nor are the discoveries in neuroscience offering new information about how the brain relates to the physical environment.” (Malnar, 2017, p. 153).19 At the same time, however, the adverts for at least one new residential development in Barcelona promising residents the benefits of “Sensory living” (The New York Times International Edition in 2019, August 31–Septem ber 1, p. 13), suggests that at least some architects/de signers are starting to realize the benefits of engaging their clients’/customers’ senses. The advert promised that the newly purchased apartment would “provoke their senses”.

Ultimately, it is to be hoped that as the growing awareness of the multisensory nature of human perception continues to spread beyond the academic community, those working in the field of architectural design practice will increasingly start to incorporate the multisensory perspective into their work; and, by so doing, promote the development of buildings and urban spaces that do a better job of promoting our social, cognitive, and emotional well-being.

(Source: Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind by Charles Spence; in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2020) 5:46 Keywords: Multisensory perception, Architecture, The senses, Crossmodal correspondences)

Related:

地方感性

愛懇雲端藝廊:設計故事館

Comment by Margaret Hsing on December 19, 2023 at 6:33pm


陈明发〈从“意识流”谈起〉

“意识流”理论易懂难精。

除了伍尔夫的著作,阅读弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫的《说吧,记忆:自传追述》也带给我很大的乐趣。此书部分地采纳了意识流。

意识流最有名的小说之一《尤利西斯》,买了许久一直没好好读,很对不起乔伊思。另一部意识流大书普鲁斯特的《追忆逝水年华》,我偷工减料地在一些选集中,当散文篇章读过一小部分,说起来很不成样子。

但在哲学方面。柏格森(1927年诺贝尔文学奖得主)对我影响很大,因为他,我上溯维柯(“诗性智慧”历史发展观),下访克里斯蒂瓦(“诗性语言”革命),思想起来心里比较踏实些。

“意识流”得益于19世纪心理学家威廉·詹姆斯的学说,但后来被归入“意识流”的文学家,明显也采纳了20世纪佛洛伊德、荣格、拉康诸子的精神分析理论。

对中国意识流文学作品我不熟悉,我近年相对喜欢的小说家如李佩甫(《无边无际的早晨》等)、冯苓植(《与死共舞—“鞭杆”的故事》等)的创作。二人把意识流与“微魔幻”做了令人期许的混融。

我个人的心智之旅,许多年来依靠着存在主义先驱海德格尔的哲学,近年有柏格森诸子加持,期待文创路上有新领悟。再读李佩甫和冯苓植等中文作家的努力结果,诗性实践在汉字文创中无疑是可能的。(19.12.2023)

Comment by Margaret Hsing on May 20, 2022 at 12:42am

劉士林·時代需要詩性文化——如果一個德國人遭遇挫折,他首先想到的應該是音樂;如果一個中國書生科場失意,他的第一反應可能是寫一首詩——中國古人之所以總是本能地、不假思索地求助於詩歌,是因為他們最深層的文化結構是詩性文化。

與其他古代民族相比,中華民族的最大貢獻之一是詩性文化,這既是我們民族與其他民族相區別的標識,也是中華民族自我認同的身份證明。

今天,詩性文化對於我們的時代有何意義?《解放周末》獨家專訪上海交通大學媒體與設計學院教授劉士林,在平仄回響的詩性文化中,追尋我們精神的回鄉之路。

中國文化是從 “詩性智慧”中轉換生成的一種文化形態,本質上是詩性文化

解放周末:您曾是一位詩人,多年來一直研究詩歌美學與文化,很早就提出了中國文化是詩性文化,這一切是怎麽開始的?

劉士林:對我而言,“詩性文化”概念的出場,在很大程度上可以說是“純乎偶然”。1990年前後,當時我還是一個剛畢業的大學生,很偶然的機會,接觸到與西方理性傳統差異很大的意大利學者維柯的著作《新科學》,他在書中提出了“詩性智慧”的概念,在這個觀點的啟發下,我幾乎是帶著幾分“詩意的迷狂”撞進了詩性文化之門。

解放周末:維柯帶給您最重要的啟發是什麽?

劉士林:維柯認為,“詩性智慧”是人類最初的智慧,古代各民族都以“詩性智慧”的精神方式創造了最初的文化模式。在人類文明之初,由於具有反思功能的理性意識尚不成熟,人類不能區別主體與對象、感性與理性,而只能借助詩性智慧來思考和創造。詩性智慧,從人類學上來說,類似於人類學家講的原始思維,從現代意義上,又近乎美學講的“藝術思維”。這與我們當時都把西方理性哲學看作是人類精神的源頭有質的差異,同時也為重新理解東方文明、特別是有“詩的國度”之稱的中國文化提供了一把鑰匙。

解放周末:我們今天已很難想象這種不區分自然與人、個體與他人,甚至不區別生與死的生命方式。 “詩性智慧”這一人類最初的智慧又是怎麽消失的呢?

劉士林:詩性智慧正如莊子說的“其生也天行,其死也物化”,曾是人類在遠古洪荒年代共同的生命方式。隨著距今最近的第四紀冰川及大洪水時代到來,直接摧毀了原始社會異常豐富的食物資源,終結了人與大自然同體合流的原始和諧關係,人類開始走出自然界;再加上青銅時代原始公有制的瓦解和私有制的成熟,加劇了人類社會內部對生活資料的激烈競爭,促發了個體精神生命的覺醒。

在這兩種經歷後,人類開始面對兩大問題:一是如何面對資源越來越緊張、生存條件越來越惡劣的大自然。他們不明白,曾經極度慷慨的大地母親為什麽突然變得吝嗇與殘酷起來?二是如何應對生命內部異軍突起的 “自我意識”與“個體需要”。他們很可能更不明白,為什麽原本樸素的內心世界在一天天變得工於心計、欲壑難填。

解放周末:對於這樣的變化,不同民族和文明又是如何回應的?

劉士林:世界上最古老的四大文明產生了四種回應的方式。一是全盤否定“對象”,如古埃及的“來世論”,認為這個世界是完全不真實的。二是徹底消解人這個“主體”,如古印度的佛教哲學,認為生命的本質是“空”。三是希臘類型,它將人與自然的關係完全對立起來,人由原始的情感主體逐漸發展為冷靜的理性主體,人與大自然的關係也越來越疏遠和緊張。第四種是中國類型,這是一種詩性智慧的反應,它一方面盡力消解生命內部逐漸展開的“感性”與“理性”的對立,另一方面又通過限制主體的欲望以盡可能減少人與自然的對立。

可以說,這是一種找回詩性智慧或重建原始和諧的努力,它在肯定個體意識與需要的同時,又不願割裂原始人群遺留的血緣親情;在不得不征服自然以換取生活資料的同時,又希望能保持與大自然固有的親密與和諧關係,這種模式的特點是在肯定自身的同時又限制自身,在改造自然的同時又希望不要“傷筋動骨”。以後的中國文化,盡管層次繁多、旁逸斜出,但都以詩性智慧為根底,所以說,中國文化是從“詩性智慧”中轉換生成的一種文化形態,本質上是詩性文化。

在古代,詩性文化不僅是審美的,也是我們民族的最高生活哲學

解放周末:回顧歷史,中國曾是一個詩歌高度發達的國度,詩性文化在中國文化和中國人的生活方式中又是如何表現的?

劉士林:如果是一個德國人遭遇了挫折,我想他首先想到的應該是音樂,正如恩格斯所說,在音樂中德國是“一切民族之王”。而一個中國古代書生要是科場失意,他往往用詩歌來排遣解憂。中國古人之所以總是本能地、不假思索地求助於詩歌,是因為他們最深層的文化結構是詩性文化。為了窺探到中國文化的詩性本質,我曾從文化人類學角度考察過“詩”的文化本源。

解放周末:在其中您看到了什麽?

劉士林:由於古代詩歌理論不發達,“詩”的真正意思一直是個謎。在甲骨文裏我們沒有看到“詩”字,只有一個相近的“寺”字,後來很多人都認同了“詩者,寺人之言”,也就是說,“詩”就是“寺人”說的話。

解放周末:這個“寺”的本義何在?

劉士林:對甲骨文裏的“寺”,在當代主要有兩種解釋。一種以人類學家葉舒憲為代表,他把“寺”解釋為類似於後代的“宦官”,進而從“性文化”、“生殖崇拜”的角度解釋詩。我則更傾向於從“食文化”角度理解詩。

具體說來,甲骨文中的“寺”在字形上從“手”和“足”,“手”和“足”在上古是主要的度量工具和標準,“手”是分配食物(即生活資料)的量器,“足”是丈量土地(即生產資料)的工具。當然,這“手”和“足”也不是一般人的,而是特指部落酋長或首領的,這些掌握分配權力的人就叫做“寺人”。由此出發,我把“寺”解釋為中國最古老的食物和土地分配體制,而“寺人”在分配時以載歌載舞的形式說唱,所以他們的唱詞,就是最初的詩。

解放周末:與物質生產相關的“寺”又怎麽變成後來的審美的“詩”?

劉士林:根據我的研究,至少經歷了三次大的轉變。一是殷周之變。從商人的“重鬼神”的宗教性歌舞到周人的“重現實”的儀式性歌舞,“詩”由此貼近人間和實用。二是周秦之變。經歷了春秋戰國的“禮崩樂壞”和秦始皇“焚書坑儒”後,周代復雜的“用樂”制度流散,導致“音樂”和“詩歌”分家,“詩”從具有明確政治功用的“樂舞”中獨立。三是魏晉之變。到了魏晉時代,詩歌主要不再承擔倫理教化作用,抒情與審美功能分化出來,與現代的詩歌越來越接近。


劉士林《時代需要「詩性文化」》 2012年03月16日10:32 來源:解放日報 林穎 / 受訪者劉士林:上海交通大學媒體與設計學院教授,主要從事美學、中國詩學、當代文化研究。)

Comment by Margaret Hsing on December 2, 2021 at 11:17pm


(續上)
解放周末:這與我們認為的“詩就是審美的”有很大不同。

劉士林:這是對詩性文化的一個現代性誤解。一般人多把它理解為西方意義上的抒情藝術,只產生愉悅或宣泄情緒的審美功能。但實際上,詩性文化更重要的是改造現實世界的實踐功能。從我們民族的歷史上看,“詩”從一開始就是食物分配制度的符號表征體系,後來又發展為以“禮樂制度”為代表的上層建築系統,《樂記》中講的“聲音之道與政通”,《毛詩序》中講的“經夫婦、成孝敬、厚人倫、美教化、移風俗”,講的都是中國詩歌特有的“詩性政治”與“詩性倫理”功能。其實,詩性文化在中國歷史上的作用不限於此,作為一種深層的思維模式與文化心理結構,詩性智慧建構和塑造了我們民族獨特的歷史實踐方式和文化創造模式。

解放周末:怎麽理解?

劉士林:這可從三方面看,首先,在人與自然之間,它代表了一種人與自然的和諧生產關係,而不是西方工業文明中人與自然的矛盾對立關係;其次,在人與社會之間,它代表了一種個體與他人的友好社會關係,而不是西方存在主義哲學揭示的“他人即地獄”;再次,在人與自身之間,它代表了一種感性和理性的有機交融關係,而不是西方文化中的“靈魂”與“肉體”的二元對立關係。詩性文化以獨特方式處理了人與自然、人與社會、人與自身的矛盾關係,所以在古代,詩性文化是我們民族的最高生活哲學。

既要清除詩性文化對現代化進程的障礙,又要努力使它成為療救“現代病”的精神資源

解放周末:詩性文化是古代農業文明的產物,但到了現代工業社會和當代後工業社會,詩性文化是否還有存在的價值?

劉士林:我曾用“情感的蘆葦”和“思想的蘆葦”來比喻中西文化的巨大差異。“情感的蘆葦”是以詩性文化為代表的感性、直覺的思維方式,“思想的蘆葦”是以西方理性文明為代表的理性、邏輯的思維方式。現代文明是以理性精神為主導的歷史進程,這是“情感”發達、“理性”不足的詩性文化在現代世界處處遇到障礙和麻煩的根源。 “五四”以來,盡管時間已過去百餘年,但由於並沒有真正完成理性啟蒙的任務,使我們很難理智地剖析社會轉型中政治、經濟、社會、文化領域的各種問題。這當然和詩性文化的積澱過於深厚相關。我也一度對此十分悲觀,甚至認為詩性文化是一種與現代文明格格不入的文化形態。

解放周末:幾千年來形成的中國詩性文化是否會像《廣陵散》,“於今絕矣”?

劉士林:當然不是。在經歷了一些曲折與反復之後,我認識到,其實包括詩性文化在內的中西文化各有各的局限性,也各有其無法回避的現代性困境。膠著於“詩性文化與現代社會是離是合”這類大而無當的問題本身沒有太大的意義。對於詩性文化而言,既要捍衛它的存在與尊嚴,又要努力展開對它的批判和改造。

詩性文化本身是一個復雜的系統,它的內部既有高度發達的審美機能和詩性精神,同時也有在詩性文化霸權話語下不發達的實用理性機能和實用理性精神。一方面,我們要完成從農業社會向現代工業文明轉型,中華民族就需要完成理性的啟蒙,因此我提出要用康德的“純粹理性批判”來補充詩性文化的理性不足;但另一方面,詩性文化盡管不符合現代化進程中“理性啟蒙”的要求,卻適應了後工業時代追求“生活質量”的審美主題。對詩性文化,既要積極探索如何清除它對中國現代化進程的障礙,也要努力使它成為療救現代社會病與文化病的精神資源。

解放周末:怎麽理解詩性文化在當下具有“治病”的功能?

劉士林:上世紀90年代以來,特別是進入新千年後,隨著西方現代工業文明弊端顯露和現代社會病象橫生,環境與生態問題日益突出,生態文明、可持續發展成為人類未來發展的重大議題。從歷史進程看,工業文明的結果是人類主體性的無限膨脹與自然環境資源的惡性損耗,但詩性文化這種帶有審美性質的生產生活方式中,卻有可能開辟出新的歷史實踐方式。盡管它也是改造、征服自然的,但同時也有效地抑制了人類的貪婪,能夠最大限度地實現人與自然的和諧共存。這是詩性文化治療“社會病”的價值之一。

解放周末:具體怎麽治療“文化病”?

劉士林:今天,我們面對著西方強大的以“非理性”為核心的現代文化和以純粹欲望為主題的後現代消費文化。在西方理性文化中,“情”與“理”不相容,因而,現代文化就很容易在理性沖動中變得機械、僵化,而後現代文化也時常會在反理性沖動中淪為“本能”與“欲望”。在詩性文化中,其“情”本質上是一種“詩化的感性”,而其“理”則是一種“詩化的理性”,因此,中國的詩性文化既不會走向高度抽象的西方邏輯系統,也不容易走向西方非理性的欲望狂歡,它揭示了在感性與理性之間除了西方的二元對立,還有一種更深刻的中國式的和諧關係。這就有可能走出西方現代的“非理性異化”和後現代的“肉身的沈淪”。

所以我認為,我們可以用中國詩性文化理論反省、檢討、批判西方當代文化,以“詩化的理性”節制“消費生活方式和消費意識形態”的惡性膨脹與無限擴張,以“詩化的感性”平衡大眾文化和娛樂文化的“娛樂至死”。

守護詩性文化,就從一首詩、一首詞的閱讀與研習開始,在唐詩宋詞的平仄中踏響我們精神的回鄉之路 (下續)

Comment by Margaret Hsing on November 1, 2021 at 2:03pm


訪劉士林教授談詩性文化
(續)

解放周末:當下我國提出“促進文化大發展大繁榮”,是否意味著詩性文化迎來了復興的契機?

劉士林:在全球化的背景下,有兩個詞引人注目,一是“文明的沖突”,二是“文明的對話”。無論你贊同何者,最重要的是先弄清什麽是中國文明的精神核心,只有這樣,才可能發生真實的對話,否則上演的只能是“三岔口”鬧劇。

在我看來,中國文明的精神核心是詩性文化,西方是理性文化。今天看來,最大的問題是理性文化的霸權化,它對詩性文化的誤讀與“現代闡釋”,造成了當代中國人對詩性文化普遍的茫然無知。

解放周末:具體表現在哪裏?

劉士林:以我個人的經驗看,我給學生開《中國詩學》時,第一節課都會提出同一個問題:“有沒有誰通讀過《唐詩三百首》和《古文觀止》? ”但悲哀的是,這麽多年過去,至今仍沒有碰到一個學生站出來說我讀過。我想主要原因是,由於在審美觀念、審美心理上普遍“西化”,他們已很難在唐詩宋詞中找到令人激動、愉快的東西了。正如馬克思所說,“再美的音樂對於不懂得音樂美的耳朵也毫無意義”,這是越來越多的年輕人把剩餘精力與時間花費在文化快餐上的深層原因。這當然是令人悲哀的,如果一個身上流淌著詩性文化血液的民族,只能與西方文化的“情”與“理”交流與共鳴,《唐詩三百首》、《千家詩》只能塵封在圖書館裏,這不僅只是一種尷尬與悲哀,更重要的是,不會有什麽真正意義上的中西文化的交流與對話。

解放周末:只有自覺我們文化的根在哪裏,才有與世界交流對話的前提。

劉士林:今天提出的“促進文化大繁榮大發展”,在本質上是“促進中國文化大發展大繁榮”,這就要求首先弄清楚什麽是中國文化。與其他古代民族對人類的貢獻不同,我以為,中華民族最大的貢獻之一是詩性文化,這既是我們民族與其他民族相區別的標識,也是中華民族內部自我認同的身份證明。從詩性文化出發,我們才知道什麽是中華民族的真、善、美;立足於詩性文化,我們才可以真正理解我們真實的存在以及表達我們真實的需要。

解放周末:守護詩性文化,我們該怎麽做?

劉士林:我想,最基礎的是認識與了解它。中國古典詩歌,既是詩性智慧最直觀的物化形態,也是中國傳統文化最重要的載體。 《詩經》是中華文化的基因庫,唐詩和宋詞是中國詩性文化發展的巔峰,都凝聚著詩性智慧。近年來,人們驚呼國民閱讀率連續走低,如果追問一下,即使在有限的閱讀中,又有多少是唐詩、宋詞呢?孔子說,“不學詩,無以言”,朱子說,讀書目的在於“變化氣質”,因此,守護詩性文化,就從一首詩、一首詞的閱讀與研習開始,在唐詩宋詞的平仄中踏響我們精神的回鄉之路,直至我們生命中的詩性機能復活,並開始感覺、體驗、思想與勞作。這樣做的目的就是要盡快改變當下日益“麥當勞化”、“好萊塢化”的文化現狀,引領日益粗鄙、機械、商業化的日常世界走向藝術和美。

當然,我們應該學習西方,應該了解科學、商業、管理等,以便在全球化的競爭中占據更有利的位置。但未來的世界,絕不僅僅由理性文化獨步天下。詩性文化既是理性文化最重要的批判者,同時也是人類全面發展不可或缺的另一半;抵制理性文化的霸權,才能真正維護人類文化的多樣性。維護詩性文化的利益與安全,既是我們對中華民族理應承擔的偉大倫理職責,也是對當代人類文化建設必須作出的莊嚴承諾。劉士林《時代需要「詩性文化」》2012年03月16日10:32 來源:解放日報 林穎 / 受訪者劉士林:上海交通大學媒體與設計學院教授,主要從事美學、中國詩學、當代文化研究。)

愛墾網 是文化創意人的窩;自2009年7月以來,一直在挺文化創意人和他們的創作、珍藏。As home to the cultural creative community, iconada.tv supports creators since July, 2009.

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All