Sunday, December 20, 2015

Book Review of Ex Libris: Confessions of a common reader


Anne Fadiman’s book Ex Libris contained eighteen exquisitely crafted essays which chronicled the author and her family’s dedication to their books and bibliomania. The first impression the book left me is its Latin title and its lists of low frequency words which conveyed the author’s erudition on reading and writing. Indeed, it is only natural that Fadiman would have an excellent command of Latinate words, with a long pedigree of writing in the family (a renowned television personality father and World War II correspondent mother). Fadiman (1998) wrote her family “viewed all forms of intellectual competition as a sacrament” (p. 14) as she and her family would complete for the now defunct weekly television program “G.E. college”, a show where two teams of four students representing different universities went against each other for scholarship money. Self-described as Fadiman U., she confessed they only lost to Brandeis and Colorado College in six years of competition.

            This is definitely a book for people who cherish books and like to read a book about books as Fadiman (1998) recounted her family’s unbridled love to books and editing. Specifically, “Insect a Carrot” described about one time when the Fadiman sat down in a restaurant for dinner, they could not help but fervently start proof-reading the menu as if the act of editing would have satiated their appetite. Or in “The Catalogical Imperative”, where Fadiman confessed her love of reading and editing Nordstrom catalogues even though she should have no business receiving those catalogues. Another topic which may interest bibliophiles is Fadiman’s description of other famous authors’ book collections in “My Odd Shelf”. For example, George Orwell collected ladies’ magazines from the 1860s and he enjoyed reading them in his bathtub. Moreover, Fadiman’s classification of carnal and courtly book lovers would definitely bring a smile to many people interested in underlining, making marginal notes, tearing pages out or continuing reading books until they fall apart.

            Despite these accolades, there are still some limitations to this book. First of all, this book reads more like a collection of autobiographical essays whose purpose is to present a bibliomaniac’s life-long love affair with her husband, her children and her books. Therefore, readers who are specifically looking for guideline on writing will definitely be disappointed because the only tip they can get is to mimic Anne Fadiman’s style, which is helpful to some extent, but nevertheless is not the same as to read a writing guide. In addition to its content, some of the essays are commissioned pieces that Fadiman wrote in a column called “The Common Reader” in Civilization Magazine (Lehmann-Haupt, 1998). Although Fadiman did bring some age-old topics such as secondhand books, reading aloud and plagiarism a new life, lack of a central theme make these chapters disjointed. Finally, readers not familiar with Western literary works would find some part of the book unreadable due to lack of prior knowledge on the subject. Although more familiar authors like George Orwell or John Updike were mentioned, authors like Ernest Thompson Seton and Father O’Reilly are less familiar to the general public. The unfamiliarity may impede comprehension of what Fadiman (1998) was trying to get across in those passages.

            Overall, Fadiman provided witticisms and entertaining details on a seemingly mundane subjects like editing and reading. If you are an avid reader who enjoys Western literature and are undaunted about the sometimes trifling task of looking up some esoteric words that you have never before encountered in your life, this is the right book for you.


翼鵬
德州農工大學
乙未年仲冬書於潛龍齋

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Linearity of Time and Education
Lo thy dread empire, Chaos is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch lets the curtain fall
And universal darkness buries all.
(as cited in Doll, 1993, p. 86)
Introduction
   As an international student pursuing a doctorate in a foreign country, my friends constantly asked me whether they should go for a doctoral degree after they receive their master’s. Their concern is that the time spent on getting a Ph.D. degree will not be worth the investment. It is as if an educational process is a linear timeline, which you start from your bachelor’s degree and end in the culmination of Ph.D. Their thinking always baffles me but the above quote from Pope helped me put their thinking in perspective. In essence, as Slattery (1995) has argued, the philosophy of modernity has resulted in a rejection of chaos by emphasizing the manipulation of time through expert time management and quantifying the achievements through finishing “assigned tasks” (e.g., finishing your Ph.D. degree in three years with a number of good publications). This concern for racing through your life courses has resulted in popular metaphors such as time flies and carpe diem, as if time is an entity that can be controlled. Or alternatively as Huebner (1975) opined that the belief in the linearity of time exerted pressure on educators to establish clear and verifiable goals. In this paper I attempt to first describe a linear perspective on time and what postmodern perspective on education can offer an alternative understanding of time.
Modernist Perspective on Time
   According to Slattery (2013), the modern mechanistic view of time has its origins from the Seventeenth century and the Newtonian vision of the universe as a giantclock system with time marching forward like a stream in a trajectory that is irreversible. Thus because time is conceptualized as never-ending and irrevocable, there is also an incessant motivation for a goal-oriented constraints because you simply cannot waste your time. Slattery (1995) opined the solution to this constant constraint on time for educators is to develop technology and organizational structures that will allow for more efficient allocation of time. However, these technological innovations did not fundamentally solve the problem of the thinking that human progress can be conceptualized as linear sets of events which can be broken down, segmented, isolated and then evaluated. This perspective as culminated in the policy of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which stipulated observable students’ progress through standardized tests.
   However, as Dewey (1938) wrote, we are always living in a historical present and it is the present moment that is the focus of our experience. The Buddha also cautions in Diamond Sutra that you cannot own hearts of past, present and future because they are all illusions and has nothing to do with your Buddha nature. Happily, postmodernism has offered us a way out of this impasse by integrating the fusion of the past and the future into the existential present. In other words, the past and future are combined when we are living at the present. The following section elaborates on how a postmodern perspective on time can offer us a way out of current deadlock.
Postmodernist Perspective on Time
   Slattery (1995) has explained that a rejection of the assumption of concrete, historical time in favor of a process-oriented view of education, or in Deweyean sense, experience. As Hueber (1975) emphasized so convincingly “The very notion of time arises out of man’s existence, which is an emergent. The future is man facing himself in anticipation of his own potentiality for being” (p. 244).
   The implication for post-modernist perspective on time is Doll’s (1993) vision of curriculum as a process and learning and understanding results from dialogue and reflection. Alternatively, Pinar (2013) conceptualized curriculum as consisting of four stages, the regressive moment, the progressive moment, the analytic moment and the analytic moment. Or as Slattery (2013) argued, “Reconceptualized curriculum theory understands time and history as proleptic- that is as the confluence of past, present and future in the synthetical moment” (p. 68). The implication for educators is a focus on learners’ autobiographical experience and the interconnectedness of all experiences. It rejects the strict adherence on quantifiable results and linear progression of time with an eclectic celebration of chaos. As Doll (1993) has explained, chaos is not purposeless and destructive but quite complex and orderly. It is a complexity best exemplified by the butterfly effect, which M.I.T. climate scientist Edward Lorenz discovered in his simulation of weather patterns. As Slattery (2013) argued, this dynamic pattern exists in the classroom and every teacher recognizes this reality. Therefore we have to lament that we are trying to use an unfit model to a reality that only exists in our imagination.
Conclusion
   So what is the response that I gave to my friends worrying about whether a doctoral education is worthy of investment? I used my personal experience as a reference point. Being a career A-minus student, I am not so brilliant that I entered the doctorate program straight out of college. I have applied and been rejected by graduate programs of linguistics, in which my passion lies. It took some twists and turns and some fortune on my part to finally land a spot working on linguistics in an education department. However, the time lapses actually did not affect my study. In fact, I not only gained more experience with linguistics by reading papers by myself but also gained practical work experience when I spent two years working as a English teacher in Taiwan. Therefore my advice to them is think long and hard before you make a decision, and if you decide to pursue your doctorate, dedicates yourself to your study. If you work hard enough, the time lapses actually would not harm you!

翼鵬
德州農工大學
乙未年仲夏書於潛龍齋


Friday, April 17, 2015

Prosody of Multiple Englishes

Prosody of Multiple Englishes Lecture Notes
Guest Lecture by Lucy Pickering at Language Matters Working Group, April 17, 2015

Prosody: Suprasegmental features of sounds such as stress, intonation and tone

Multiple Englises (Kachru, 1992): The recognition that English comprises of three different circles used by people of different ethnicities

Inner circle: Native Speaker Model (e.g., American English, English English)

Outer circle: Institutionalized varieties of English (e.g., Indian English, Singaporean English)

Expanding Circle: Emerging varieties (e.g., China English, Japanese English)

Functions of Intonation in English

Rising—Inclusive, shared understanding (e.g., The pope is Catholic?)
Falling---Assertive (e.g., Time is up)
Level----Neutral (e.g., The assignment is due on Monday night)

The problem of prosodic cues in the speech of international teaching Assistants
No use of rising intonation for rapport-building similar to Gumperz’ (1982) study of Indian waiters

No Contrastive stress

E.G.,
Zhuo: The phone number is 979 4225143
Wei: 9794224143?
Zhuo: No 979 4225143

The lack of contrastive stress led to linguistic penalty (Roberts & Campbell, 2006)

翼鵬
德州農工大學

乙未年孟夏書於潛龍齋

Monday, February 4, 2013

為學日益 為道日損



        前幾天後學和朋友討論到四書時,朋友問後學讀那位學者注的四書,後學回答說後學讀經典都是直接讀原文,很少參考注解。朋友非常不解的問這樣怎麼知道讀的東西到底對不對?這其實反應了兩種不同的心態,也是一直困擾後學的問題,就是到底如何把學問與修行連結在一起。在這裡後學想舉六祖壇經機緣品裡法號無盡藏的尼姑問六祖大師大涅槃經的因由來說明。話說無盡藏禪師拿著經文請六祖開示,六祖答道他不識字,但能解義,無盡藏禪師很吃驚的問文字都無法理解了怎麼能了解經義,六祖大師便開示說:諸佛妙理,非關文字!
        的確,讀經典弄懂一字一句的確很重要,但是那並不是讀經典的主要目的。文以載道,文以明道,文字是幫助我們了解諸佛妙理,但是如果一味執著文字,想著那位學者注的比較好,甚至是那個版本的論語或孟子才是聖人的原版,那只能說犯了文字障的大忌。學仁大仙李建仁點傳師曾慈示這些聖人留下來的經典是紀錄聖人的行儀,所以我們讀經典也應該是去學習聖人的心。這點後學有很深刻的體會。後學之所以後來會投入道場,就是因為肯定道真、理真與天命真。但是後學並非一求道完馬上明白這件事,反而是拖了很久。後學一直相信追求學問就是追求真理,於是花了很多時間涉獵不同的學問,但是到最後卻發現當你發現一個問題解決了後,反而又出現兩三個新的問題。而且很多人生碰到的問題也不是你的所學可以解決。相反的當你真正用心去渡人成全人,很多心頭上一直解不開的結,反而迎刃而解。後學在有實際參辦的經驗才明白多年前引保師和後學說的話,即是只有大愛才能緣起不滅。因為我們本有的自性是廣大無邊,但是自性是因,要化為行動才能夠發揮作用,所以當你實際把這些讀到的經典用在待人接物與個人修養中,才能綻放出自性的光芒。就如黃梅五祖傳法給六祖時交代的偈語:有情來下種,因地果還生。無情亦無種,無性亦無生。
        雖然說修行是一生的事,但活佛老師曾經慈示其實自性本自具足,何必需要修?但是因為徒兒無法直接契入,所以只好靠漸修來慢慢明白。後學對此有深刻的體悟。由於後學對史學很有興趣,常常會讀一些與宗教和思想相關的史學著作,但是也常常自我綑綁,一直在想如何把這些學問和修行結合在一起,甚至開始懷疑修辦道的意義。結果有天無意翻開維摩詰經,馬上打開後學心中的疑惑。經文是:何謂縛?何謂解?貪著禪味是菩薩縛,以方便生是菩薩解。又無方便慧縛,有方便慧解;慧方便縛,有慧方便解!這件事也讓後學深深體會到老子為何會說為學日益,但為道日損。的確,讀書可以增加我們對世事的了解,但是知識並不等於智慧。相反的過多知見反而會讓人很執著,覺得對的就是對的,無法讓新的東西進入腦中。修道則是要把這些知見打破,讓自己的自性能夠流露出來,能夠了了分明。熟高熟低,不就一目了然?

翼鵬
德州農工大學
壬辰年臘月書於潛龍齋

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

傅孟真先生傳記跋


我們不是讀書人,我們只是上窮碧落下黃泉,動手動腳找東西[1]
一 引言
        本文主旨是談中研院史語所創所所長傅斯年先生,主要參照中研院副院長王汎森先生的著作Fu Ssu-nien: A Life in Chinese History and Politics”,此書是王先生於1993年在余英時先生指導下完成的博士論文,後經修訂在2000年時由Cambridge University Press出版。傅斯年先生無疑是近代中國史中最重要的一位學者之一,而多數人對他的認識就是曾經出任台灣大學校長以及校內的傅鐘,殊不知孟真先生對近代中國學術進步有舉足輕重的影響。另外於民國初年中國處於戰亂中,世人們為了經世濟國,紛紛提出各種思想,其中又以康有為與梁啟超兩位先生最著名。當年學界蔓延著他山之石,可以攻玉的思潮,提出強烈的國族改造計劃[2],而孟真先生生於這樣的環境中自然不可能不受影響,也提筆著述了幾部上古史的重要著作。筆者主要想談談孟真先生的學術與思想。
二 孟真先生之學術思想
        引文這句話出自孟真先生所著的史語所工作旨趣,可能有人會覺得很奇怪,讀書人不讀怎麼做學問?要探討這個問題需從梁任公提出的新史學談起。傳統中國國學是以六經為主,重點是要明白經義以修身治國,自漢武帝罷黜百家,獨尊儒數,讀書人的重點就在了解儒家經典的主旨,以用其修身治世。但是因史皇帝焚書坑儒,先秦流傳下來的古文獻不多,於是有一派人便主張民間口語相傳的經典才是保留最原始的儒家思想,但是在孔子舊址裡發現了古書,於是便有了今、古文之爭。清代乾嘉諸老為了解決這個問題,轉向考據學。原本聲韻、訓詁與文字三門合稱小學,只是幫助人了解經中的微言大義的工具,但是清儒們注意到要解決今古文之爭最好的方法就是對文獻的考證來鑑定經文的真偽,但是這種為了追求最古的文獻的思維出現了一種矛盾,即是學者一直在書上下工夫,像收集古董似的考察經典,而不注重文字以外的材料,難怪有位民國時期的史學家感嘆三百年來中國學術居然未進步。反觀西方的學者不侷限材料,廣泛的使用族譜、方誌與出土材料,反而做出了一片學問,結果20世紀初漢學的重鎮居然是在巴黎而不是北京。孟真先生年輕時在英國與德國留學,對於這種由西方人主導的漢學感到非常不滿。所以回國後在廣州中山大學創辦史語所時目標就是要把科學方法帶進中國,用自然科學客觀的辯證法來研究歷史,而且強調要多方涉獵材料。就他自己所言,凡是一門學科可以在方法上進步,學問才能前進。最好的例子莫過於安陽考古。當時中國處於戰亂之中,很多學者認為中國之所以無法富強就是因為長年受君王統治與儒家思想的影響,強調要服從權威,而且只有家沒有國的概念,於是紛紛提出要救中國首先要從民族建構做起,從根本救中國。其中又以顧詰剛先生提出的層累說最有名。顧先生研究了中國上古史後發現時代愈後,歷史愈完整,他因此提出古代所謂三皇五帝都是後人編造出來的神話,甚至對夏朝與商朝的存在都提出質疑。正如清儒一樣,要解決這個問題最好的方法就是找出土材料。孟真先生指派李濟與董作賓先生前往西安考察殷商文化,這是中國史上第一次的考古發掘,後來得到斐然的成果,不但成功應用了科學方法研究歷史,而且也確立了殷商存在的事實,更是奠定史語所在漢學界的地位。另外孟真先生的史學思維除了重視科學方法,也重視客觀性。我們知道一個事件在不同人的手上可以有不同的解讀方法,同樣的歷史並非是史學家客觀反應史料,而是透過對史料的整理與剪裁提出自己的歷史解釋,這種方法很有利於政治解釋。Anderson (1983)提出想像族群的概念(imagined communities)大略是說一個人一生能碰到同族的人有限,要接受從未見過的一群人屬於同一國族的人需要想像,而歷史正是這種國族想像建構的鋼骨。當時逢亂世很多史學家透過學術來影響政治,但孟真先生受德國史學家蘭克的影響,認為史學就是史料學,史學家的工作只是客觀的分析與整理史料並轉述其內容,不應該加入個人主觀價值,換句話說就是史學超然於政治之上。另外史語所能成功也靠孟真先生一流的用人眼光。當年史語所三組的主任陳寅恪、趙元任與李濟都是當時中國第一流的學者。他們培養出來的學生後來也都是各學科中的佼佼者[3],就是這種用人唯才的思維主導,才能讓史語所在幾年內就成為國際知名的研究單位,甚至有天下第一所之稱。
孟真先生之經世思想
        接下來要談談孟真先生的經世思想。中國自1895年鴉片戰爭之後,中國就遭西方列強魚肉,不斷割地賠款。當時讀書人看到這種情況痛心疾首,他們追問國家民族何以會成為這樣,得到的結論是傳統士人太重視求取功名,於是他們認為要救中國就要把這種傳統的毒藥全部清除,導入西方的思想[4]。但這些學者們並不是排斥傳統的學問。相反的他們就是因為太愛國才要用激進的手段救中國。但是這些學者本身都是受古典教育出身的,要他們完全放棄自己所受的教育是不可能的,所以我們可以看到在他們思維上的矛盾,孟真先生當然也是。他從小受私塾教育,熟讀四書五經,即使後來在五四運動中強烈反彈傳統的思為,但是私底下他還是很喜歡讀古書。孟真先生的經世思想簡單來說就是一種要打破傳統家庭的結構。前文提到學者們認為中國人重視家庭大於國家,導致人民只有家而無國的概念,所以孟真先生認為要救中國就要打破這種結構,讓人民明白無有國,何有家。另外他也非常反對傳統儒家對心靈層次方面的探討。他透過在殷墟發掘出來的甲骨文對古性字研究表示性的古字是沒有涉及心靈,而只是一種客觀描述物理現象。不過有趣的是晚年孟真先生在晚年對自己激進的學問有修改,認為完全反對原始儒家思想沒有討論到心靈層次是不對的。這種反動除了是個人因生活經驗而對理論有修改之外,也是因為對理論有修改之外,也是因為流行於30.40年代的實證主義(positivism)的哲學思維已經退燒的影響。
四 結語
  本文主要探討傅孟真先生的學術與經世思想。基本上孟真先生最主要的思想就是要把史學變成一門科學,用實際考證的方式加上不同材料的運用拼湊出客觀的歷史事實。這種不侷限文字材料的新思維對後世學術影響非常大,再加上他用人眼光,才能使史語所在幾年之內聞名翰林。另外他的經世思想可以說是那個時代的產物,需要把他的理論放在大時代的背景下思考方能明白。當然孟真先生非常有名,筆者也只不過是就個人讀書心得做一份報告。對筆者而言,從閱讀孟真先生相關的著作中得到最重要的啟發是要大量參照各種不同的材料,另外也要有廣泛的學科涉獵,方能治學上有一方建樹!
References
Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Wang, F.S. (2000). Fu Ssu-nien: A Life in Chinese History and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

翼鵬
德州農工大學
壬辰年臘月書於潛龍齋



[1] 語出歷史語言所工作旨趣
[2] 最著名的就是顧詰剛先生的古史辨運動。參見王汎森著古史辨運動的興起
[3] 如以研究苗傜語聞名的張琨院士
[4] 如胡適提出的德先生與賽先生