虫部落

【周更】每周推荐一部书/影/音

查看: 6600|回复: 34
滑小姬 发表于 2020-7-27 01:01:54 |阅读模式
社畜之后总感觉输入和输出都降得厉害,公众号动不动被人举报也懒得更新了,突然就想开个这样的帖子,也算是对我的一个正面激励吧,推荐的书/影/音肯定是看过或者正在看的,如果同样感兴趣可以在本帖或者我的主页留言获取电子书,希望有书友一起讨论。

本周推荐的是Eliese Colette Goldbach的《Rust : A Memoir of Steel and Grit》(锈带:钢铁和水泥的记忆),今年3月初出版的书,内容也还算新,里面还有不少对千禧世代和特朗普的吐槽,我是出版当月读完的,反复又看了几遍,因为家在东北老工业基地,我个人是有很强的废土情结的,喜欢Rebecca Litchfield的摄影集《Soviet Ghosts》(苏维埃幽魂),以前也会学着Rebecca Litchfield做一些城探(Urban Exploration),深夜打着手电翻进老建筑里拍摄之类,这其实是个危险的事情,那些工业遗址很多都是危楼,说不定就会有塌方事故,但是我乐此不疲,就像书里作者写的,进入工厂之前,她不懂克利夫兰,他和华盛顿特区的律师交谈时所介绍的故乡也是那样空洞,在学会欣赏克利夫兰的橙色火焰之前,她无法捍卫克利夫兰的精神。作者在某章末尾总结到,火焰在很大程度上是我们历史和身份的一部分。不断提醒你,即使在没有持久性的世界中,有些事情也可以经受时间的考验。

最后附上【新潮沉思录】对《极乐迪斯科》的评语:
“罗伯特将自己小说的世界观浓缩进了一张A4纸上,而ZA/UM则将他的想象变成了真实呈现在电脑屏幕上的画面,一个以他们青春时代生活的后冷战时期的东欧为蓝本的城市,在这里有铅灰色的海岸线、漂着油污的锈铜色溪流、倾颓破败的楼宇、肮脏晦暗的廉价公寓;在这里有着劣质烟、酒、致幻剂、也有蒸汽朋克风格的载具和超自然生物;最重要的是,在这里有着保X党、法X斯主义分子、共X主义者、自X主义者、无X府主义者,有秉持着从极左到极右,无数种意识形态,彼此剑拔弩张,却又被困在同一座小城的市民们,还有被他们轮流蹂躏,最后却又被他们的鲜血所染红的血色广场。

P.S.我想这是一本很值得分享给大家的书,关于历史、记忆与生产,关于看待这个世界的态度,这个月我也读了一篇和废土有关的文章,Andreas Huyssen的《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁),或许能一定程度上解释这种废土情结,如果有很多人有兴趣的话我找个时间OCR下来贴在这个帖子里。

2020.7.27


每周推荐内容:

第一更 Eliese Colette Goldbach的《Rust : A Memoir of Steel and Grit》(锈带:钢铁和水泥的记忆)
引申阅读
Andreas Huyssen的《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁)第一部分
Andreas Huyssen的《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁)第二部分
Andreas Huyssen的《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁)第三部分

第二更 Ben Lewis的《Hammer And Tickle : A History Of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes》(锤子和乐子:通过共义段子来讲述共义历史)
引申阅读
刘济昆整理的一些文革笑话集;英剧《Tiny Revolutions》

第三更 张世文的《定县农村工业调查》
引申阅读
《定县农村工业调查》自序中关于具体调查方法的第一部分
《定县农村工业调查》自序中关于具体调查方法的第二部分
《毛泽东农村调查文集》

第四更 崔卫平的《不死的海子》
引申阅读
周云蓬《北大——献给海子》

第五更 几本贪污查办相关的书 做了个简图,干货较少不详述

第六更 莎士比亚《空王冠》系列剧
引申阅读
恩斯特·康托洛维茨的《国王的两个身体》(The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology)

第七更 赵星,李盛庆,叶鹰等著《H型指数和H型测度研究》
撩月 发表于 2020-7-27 10:08:22
优秀。监督楼主,flag 不要倒
国士无双 发表于 2020-8-3 08:51:40
赞一下

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/80books

不由想到了这个项目,希望楼主能坚持。
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-3 03:14:41
本周推荐的是Ben Lewis的《Hammer And Tickle : A History Of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes》(锤子和乐子:通过共义段子来讲述共义历史),这本书的主题大概可以总结为“It is a history of humour, more than a humorous history.”作者搜集了很多共义笑话,所有这些书都把共义笑话描述为中欧,东欧和俄罗斯的遗产。比较耐人寻味的一点是笑话背后的民族主义,它们都包含大致相同的笑话,但每个作者都声称大多数笑话起源于自己的国家。唯一没有夸耀这方面的国家是东德,因为他们知道没有人会相信他们。这些声明显示出其实相较于“苏联笑话”的名气来说,真正来源于苏共的笑话并不多,大约只有一千至一千五百。另外中国人,越南人和柬埔寨人似乎都没有以这种方式表达过他们的经历(其实中国有,作者不知道而已,譬如刘济昆整理的一些文革笑话集)。古巴人讲了很多关于卡斯特罗的笑话,但很多老笑话改编自欧洲共义国家的笑话,新笑话是古巴流亡者和右翼美国人发明的,很难将它们作为共义公民的真实表现进行研究。所以这种笑话可以简单统称为“苏联笑话”,这里面最著名的是斯洛伐克作家扬·卡利纳(Jan Kalina)撰写的1001笑话,该书于1969年在布拉迪斯拉发发行。1980年,他的笑话和亲身经历的审判故事成为英国电视剧《Tiny Revolutions》的主题。

有关“笑”的研究肯定是个偏右的话题,按照著名右派喜剧家陈佩斯的理论,“笑”来自于不平等(比如我们看到人出丑会发笑,就是建立在这种优越感之上),是一种对权威的解构。共义笑话形成于十九世纪末苏俄革命初期,一些作家迅速捕捉到共义理论和实践的缺点和矛盾——将处女政治制度强加给信息封闭、未受教育的人口(譬如一位未受过良好教育的公民期待着开会–“今天真的要召开全体会议,等到看到当前的法定人数后再讨论”,然后再讨论会议是“完全工业化”还是“完全实际”。),所以这个时候共义笑话的主要形式是复杂的文学讽刺,由于革命初期报刊审查不是很严格,这些笑话百花齐放,在二十世纪中叶的新经济政策时期与《真理报》每日发行量相同,到了斯大林治下的三十年代,由于言论管控以及笑话的质量民粹化,整体数量和质量都远远下滑,大多只是老笑话的翻版,不再具有曾经良性的创造力(苏俄革命初期很多苏联笑话的讽刺作家是同情支持苏维埃的),作者举的一个例子里,一个三十年代的苏联笑话甚至可以追溯至12世纪一位波斯诗人的著作。

最后说明一下,这本书写于2010年之前(再版过几次,我看的是08年的版本),那是个全球最右的时代,苏联的尸体吃出了很长时间资义国家主导的世界繁荣,中国也在不断融入“全球化”之中并在08年左右出现盛极转衰的趋势,而作者的立场在我看来无疑是偏右的,他的妻子则恰恰相反,出生于东德,经历过两德合并后西德对东德无休止的诋毁污蔑甚至暴力清场的她多少是怀念DDR的,不过这些都不重要,我们可以直接看那些笑话本身,孰是孰非交给自己思考。

最后带点私货,摘录下我喜欢的一段:
As I stood in the industrial ruin, craning my neck upwards, contemplating this gigantic failure of human effort, I was overcome with a sense of the sublime. I felt like an eighteenth-century Englishman on the Grand Tour, beholding for the first time in his life the panorama of the Roman Forum with its crumbling Ionic columns and cracked pediments, or, having climbed a steep Swiss Alp, looking across the expanse of a glacier under a darkening tempestuous sky. The scene was both picturesque and fearsome – an image of hubris and of a heroic struggle.
Then I woke up. It was a dream about a world I would never see. That old slogan had long been washed off the walls of Soviet factories, which had themselves long been torn down. I thought about what the dream meant with its Piranesian sense of scale: Lenin’s maths, and the fun had with it, tell us that Communist jokes were a David and Goliath struggle: small pebbles of wit slung against the hectoring Soviet giant.
In the beginning there was no Communism and no Communist jokes. Then came the Russian Revolution.


2020.8.3
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-9-8 21:38:43
补9.6周的档
本周推荐的是《空王冠》系列,喜欢权游系列不要错过,《空王冠》是BBC在12年和16年推出的两季奥运献礼片,囊括了莎翁八位英国帝王传中的五位,外有英法百年战争,内有红白玫瑰战争。是英国君主制度、骑士精神、宗教精神、国家意识、法律、教育乃至经济激荡发展的时期。

莎士比亚身处伊丽莎白一世时代,对伊丽莎白父系血脉的兰开斯特王朝的亨利四五六十分客气,而对金雀花的理查二和约克篡位者理查三颇为尖锐,可以将这部系列剧理解为理查二三中间插播亨利四五六。

前百年的金雀花和红白玫瑰王朝还处于一个神谕的混乱时代,权力仍旧具有超越性。后百年的都铎王朝则近似于现代的商战,进入了一个强盗和恶棍的时代,学者称之为“现代性”,也可以简单理解为“人性自私的崛起”:权力已经不再从属于圣杯,权力本身就是圣杯。

空王冠(Hollow Crown)”一词来自理查二第三幕,《理查二世》对“君主”(Monarch)的概念诠释的相当精妙。可以参照恩斯特·康托洛维茨的《国王的两个身体》(The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology):一个易于损坏的个人身体,和一个具有神性永远存续的政治身体。理查二10岁即位,是个“男孩暴君”——漂亮、优雅、精致,具有疏离却戏剧的性格。这个角色经典之处就在于,无论人们是否承认,所有的人在权力面前都是孩子。

顺便一提《权力的游戏》很多地方借鉴了这段历史,红玫瑰兰开斯特对应红狮子兰尼斯特,白玫瑰约克对应冰原狼史塔克。开头的疯王对应的是理查二世。

2020.9.6
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-23 23:51:59
这周出差有点忙,拖到现在,本周推荐的是崔卫平的《不死的海子》,书里很多名家对海子的回忆或评价,很多人和海子熟识,包括《十三邀》里和许知远谈海子的西川。作为诗人的海子已成为一个时代的象征:他的诗歌理想,他营造的独特的系列意象,他对于中国诗歌的创造性贡献一一他把古典精神和现代精神、本土文化和外来文化、乡土中国和都市文明作了成功的融合。当然对诗歌的理解因人而异,大家可以读过海子诗集后将这本当成一个文学批评性质的书参考来看。

提到海子特别想提几首歌,一首是《九月》,这首也是我最喜欢的海子的诗没有之一,改编自海子的同名诗,张慧生作曲,演唱者周云蓬,时人称“词者卧轨去,曲者自缢亡,歌者双眼盲,听者独断肠。”这首歌卢庚戌、李健、旦增尼玛等都翻唱过,个人还是最喜欢周云蓬原版和卢庚戌版,周云蓬版中间副歌还夹杂了蒙古的呼麦,唱的是海子《怅望祁连(之二) 》里引过的匈奴民歌:“亡我祁连山,使我六畜不蕃息。亡我焉支山,使我妇女无颜色。”周云蓬在自己的书里收录过一篇文章《北大——献给海子》,之后放在楼里。

另一首是宝石老舅的《海子》,老舅对海子的理解明显有偏差,这首与其说是海子不如说是他自己,但是很带感,有点像本书里钟鸣《中间地带》那一章的描写,可以和《浪子(live版)》搭配听。海子对东北文艺圈的影响还是挺大的,虽然他本人不是东北人,但他死在山海关,后续翻唱他作品的周云蓬、卢庚戌、李健都是东北人,其实《九月》就很有东北感,以一个荷尔德林样的笔法描写他在高纬度草原上目击到奇异的景观,意象与意象的组合,诗的意象都出自于深沉而哀伤的内心,并且动静相村,时空交错,将意象反复地是现,最终形成为一种高远古雅的诗意时空,令人惊心动魄。

2020.8.23
MindBread 发表于 2020-7-28 15:06:43
发抖的小熊猫 发表于 2020-7-27 10:07
你看的是英文原版书吗? 可否分享一些读英文书的方法呢?
自从连续背单词突破100天之后(虽然每天只花了20几分 ...

https://www.laohuang.net/2017031 ... ocabulary-studying/
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-11 06:39:06
本周推荐为张世文的《定县农村工业调查》,是张世文教授早期在河北省定县(现定州市)中华平民教育促进会社会调查部工作时主持该县农村工业调查的报告,张教授1929年由老师李景汉先生介绍去定县。定县平教会一进门的白墙上,写着“除文盲,作新民”六个大红字,他就是在这种宗旨的感动下,从燕京大学毕业后,放弃出国留学的机会毅然去到乡间,为多难的祖国贡献自己的力量。张教授于30年代历经四年时间走遍定县453个村庄5255户人家完成此项调查巨著,全书519页,摘要就有46页,他将定县工业的全体,包括纺织,编制,木工,铁工,化学,食品……自家庭手工业以至作坊工业,自纺织工业以至五金工业都详细地叙述,使我们对于中国农村社会的工业(极大部分当然是手工业)或者是中国内地工业的地位得到一个清楚的,深切的认识。

当时正值日本将入侵北京之前,张教授写出几十万字调查报告后,平教会及时在北京赶印成书,除了书中具体的调查分析论证,自序中张教授对他是如何具体做调查的描述令人动容(之后OCR附上)。作为我国解放前第一本调查一县农村工业的著作,张先生的报告可以说是关于家庭工业,乡村工业第一部有价值的出版物,同时还是经济史的一份重要资料。

另一方面,这也是中国第一本以县为单位做出全面调査的著作,这种以县为单位的意义非常重要。中国一县不仅是行政区域的单位,而也实在是一个社会生活的共同区域单位。中国为一千九百多县所构成,而每县又为若干乡村所构成。县村实为中国大多数民众的着落地,在一个县里实验成功的结果,即可推行于他县,关于统计调查的工作也是以县作单位最为适宜。

调査研究了定县的农村工业以后,作者所得到的结论可从四方来说。第一是关于中国乡村家庭手工业的前途的问题,第二是关于中国工业制度的问题,第三是关于发展,建设与改造中国工业的一个原则上的讨论,第四是关于建设中国工业的一个理论的步骤与办法的商榷。具体可以参照摘要部分的【五、工业制度】和【七、结论与建议】。农村工业的严重性,不仅在于如何保存几种没落的旧式手工业,也不仅在于如何加增农民些微副业的收入,乃是在分散的工村制度(industrial villages)是否可以代替集中城市的工业制度。作者在书中提出了自己对于怎样建设中国完整的民族工业体系的很多构想,并表示无非是自己的一点小小的意见,至于要把它弄得周详精密,具体切实,还要靠着多方面对于这个问题有兴趣的与实际努力的专家,以及ZF负责工业建设的领袖,由实地经验中去考索,去思考,去计划,大家发表意见,共同商讨,蔗几オ能产生一个比较完满,比较实用的具体计划。

2020.8.11
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 01:48:42
《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁)
The dictionary defines nostalgia as “homesickness” or a “longing for something far away or long ago.”1 The word is made up of the Greek nostos = home and algos =pain. Nostalgia’s primary meaning has to do with the irreversibility of time: something in the past is no longer accessible. Since the European seventeenth century,with the emergence of a new sense of temporality increasingly characterized by the radical asymmetries of past, present, and future, nostalgia as a longing for a lost past has developed into the modern disease perse. This predominantly negative coding of nostalgia within modernity is easily explained: nostalgia counteracts, even undermines linear notions of progress, whether they are framed dialectically as philosophy of history or sociologically and economically as modernization. But nostalgic longing for a past is always also a longing for another place. Nostalgia can be a utopia in reverse. Temporality and spatiality are necessarily linked in nostalgic desire. The architectural ruin is an example of the indissoluble combination of spatial and temporal desires that trigger nostalgia. In the body of the ruin the past is both present in its residues and yet no longer accessible, making the ruin an especially powerful trigger for nostalgia.
The cult of ruins has accompanied Western modernity in waves since the eighteenth century. But over the past decade and a half, a strange obsession with ruins has developed in the countries of the northern transatlantic as part of a much broader discourse about memory and trauma, genocide and war. This contemporary obsession with ruins hides a nostalgia for an earlier age that had not yet lost its power to imagine other futures. At stake is a nostalgia for modernity that dare not speak its name after acknowledging the catastrophes of the twentieth century and the lingering injuries of inner and outer colonization. Yet this nostalgia persists, straining for something lost with the ending of an earlier form of modernity. The cipher for this nostalgia is the ruin.
The Ruin Craze
At a time when the promises of the modern age lie shattered like so many ruins, when we speak with increasing frequency both literally and metaphorically of the ruins of modernity, a key question arises for cultural history: What shapes our imaginary of ruins in the early twenty-first century, and how has it developed historically? How can we speak of a nostalgia for ruins as we remember the bombed out cities of World War II (Rotterdam and Coventry, Hamburg and Dresden,Warsaw, Stalingrad, and Leningrad). Bombings, after all, are not about producing ruins. They produce rubble. But then the market has recently been saturated with stunning picture books and films (documentary and fictional; e.g., The Downfall,2004) of the ruins of World War II. In them, rubble is indeed transformed, even aestheticized, into ruin.
Nostalgia is at stake in the northern transatlantic when one looks at the decaying residues of the industrial age and its shrinking cities in the industrial heartlands in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the United States, and elsewhere: abandoned auto factories in Detroit; the monstrous blast furnaces of former steelworks in the Ruhr, now incorporated into public parks; the gigantic coal-steel conglomerates in Eastern Europe surrounded by ghost towns, ciphers of the end of socialism; and soon. Such ruins and their representation in picture books, films, and exhibits are a sign of the nostalgia for the monuments of an industrial architecture of a past age that was tied to a public culture of industrial labor and its political organization. We are nostalgic for the ruins of modernity because they still seem to hold a promise that has vanished from our own age: the promise of an alternative future. Such nostalgia for the ruins of the modern can be called reflective in Svetlana Boym’s sense and refutes historian Charles Maier’s pithy pronouncement that nostalgia is to memory like kitsch is to art. “Reflective nostalgia cherishes shattered fragments of memory and temporalizes space. . . . [It] reveals that longing and critical thinking are not opposed to one another, as affective memories do not absolve one from compassion, judgment or critical reflection.”
The present fascination with industrial ruins raises other questions. To what extent is the contemporary love affair with ruins in the countries of the northern transatlantic still energized by an earlier imagination that had fastened on to the ruins of classical antiquity? And what is the relation of this imaginary of ruins to the obsession with urban preservation, remakes, and retrofashions, all of which seem to express a fear or denial of the ruination by time? Our imaginary of ruins can be read as a palimpsest of multiple historical events and representations, and the intense concern with ruins is a subset of the current privileging of memory and trauma both inside and outside the academy.
Given this overdetermination in the way we imagine and conceptualize ruins, can something like an “authentic” ruin of modernity be the subject of reflective nostalgia? An answer can be found in the imaginary of ruins that developed in the eighteenth century’s querelle des anciens et des modernes and was carried forth in romanticism and privileged in the nineteenth-century search for national origins, only to end up in the ruin tourism of the present. The work of Giovanni Battista Piranesi stands as one of the most radical articulations of the ruin problematic within modernity rather than after it. My interest in Piranesi and his ruins may well be itself nostalgic—nostalgic, that is, for a secular modernity that had a deep understanding of the ravages of time and the potential of the future, the destructiveness of domination and the tragic shortcomings of the present; an understanding of modernity that—from Piranesi and the romantics to Baudelaire, the historical avant-garde, and beyond—resulted in emphatic forms of critique, commitment, and compelling artistic expression. Here, as in any form of nostalgia, it is difficult to walk the line between sentimental lament over a loss and the critical reclaiming of a past for the purposes of constructing alternative futures. But Piranesi may have lessons for us as we reflect upon the loss of an earlier modernity and its visions of alternative futures.
My interest in coupling the abstract concept of authenticity with the concreteness of ruins and their imaginary is based on the idea that both the ruin in its emphatic sense and the notion of the authentic are central topoi of modernity itself rather than simply concerns of the late twentieth century. Modernity as ruin was a topos well before the twentieth century and most certainly before postmodernism. The authentic ruin is not to be understood as some ontological essence of ruins but as a significant conceptual and architectural constellation that points to moments of decay, falling apart, and ruination already present in the beginnings of modernity in the eighteenth century. Just as the imaginary of ruins was created in early modernity rather than being modernity’s end product, the notion of authenticity is a thoroughly historical concept produced, like nostalgia itself, by modernity rather than referring to an atemporal transcendent essence or to some premodern state of grace. Tied in literature and art to eighteenth-century notions of authorship, genius, originality, selfhood, uniqueness, and subjectivity, the idea of authenticity accumulated desires and intensities the more it was threatened by alienation, inauthenticity, and reproducibility during the course of modernization. As a term in that broader semantic field, authenticity had its heyday in the second half of the twentieth century together with the boom in nostalgias of all kinds, and it has its currency today in retro-authenticity, authentic remakes, and the Web’s “authenticity consulting,” all phenomena which implicitly deny what they claim to be. At the same time, authenticity has fallen on hard times in intellectual discourse. From Adorno to Derrida authenticity has been disparaged as ideology or metaphysics, tied to a jargon of Eigentlichkeit, pseudo-individualization, and delusions of self-presence.
Nevertheless, I am not ready to abandon the concept altogether, and I take comfort in the fact that even Adorno, one of the most radical critics of a specific post-1945 form of Eigentlichkeit, still spoke of the authenticity of modernist art as radical negation. His is a notion of the authentic aware of its own historicity. Similarly, I will locate the “authentic ruin” of modernity in the eighteenth century, and I will suggest that this earlier imaginary of ruins still haunts our discourse about the ruins of modernity in general. At the same time, I acknowledge that the twentieth century has produced a very different imaginary of ruins that has made that earlier authentic ruin obsolete. Even genuine (“echt” rather than authentic) ruins have metamorphosed. The element of decay, erosion, and a return to nature so central to eighteenth-century ruins and their nostalgic lure is eliminated when Roman ruins are sanitized and used as mise en scène for open-air opera performances (Terme di Caracalla in Rome); when medieval castle ruins or dilapidated estates from later centuries are restored to yield conference sites, hotels, or vacation rentals (the Paradores of Spain, the Landmark Trust in the United Kingdom); when industrial ruins are made over into cultural centers; or when a museum like the Tate Modern installs itself in a decommissioned power plant on the south bank of the Thames. Authenticity seems to have become part of museal preservation and restoration, a fact that can only increase nostalgia.
“Authentic ruins,” as they still existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, seem no longer to have a place in late capitalism’s commodity and memory culture. As commodities, things in general don’t age well. They become obsolete, are thrown out or recycled. Buildings are torn down or restored. The chance for things to age and to become ruin has diminished in the age of turbo capitalism, ironically in step with the continuing rise in the average age of the populace. The ruin of the twenty-first century is either detritus or restored age. In the latter case, real age has been eliminated by a reverse face-lifting. The new is made to look old rather than the old made to look young. Repro- and retrofashions make it increasingly hard to recognize that which is genuinely old in this culture of preservation and restoration. The German writer and filmmaker Alexander Kluge once spoke tellingly of “the attack of the present on the rest of time.”
Dus 发表于 2020-9-8 16:41:53
SURF-
请问 本月推荐是什么呢?
书记、随笔、电影观感还是 如何?


https://www.chongbuluo.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=7454
在自帖站中 加入了本帖,以随记,共正心。
https://www.chongbuluo.com/static/image/hrline/2.gif
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-31 11:30:55
昨晚被困住了上不了网,先简单补个档,之后完善,看的贪污查办相关的书,不废话,上图

2020.8.30
贪污手法查处.png
Li-guru 发表于 2020-7-27 07:54:24
内心极其赞赏不功利性的看书的人的
布拉格 发表于 2020-7-27 10:07:05
克利夫兰...让我想到詹姆斯,骑士队。查了下也是搞钢铁工业的,现在转型中。
发抖的小熊猫 发表于 2020-7-27 10:07:18
你看的是英文原版书吗? 可否分享一些读英文书的方法呢?
自从连续背单词突破100天之后(虽然每天只花了20几分钟), 我渐渐萌生了看英文书的想法...
冷血傲情 发表于 2020-7-27 16:49:51
下次请把链接放上谢谢
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-7-27 19:49:58
发抖的小熊猫 发表于 2020-7-27 10:07
你看的是英文原版书吗? 可否分享一些读英文书的方法呢?
自从连续背单词突破100天之后(虽然每天只花了20几分 ...


我没啥方法,靠兴趣熬过适应期就好了,我最开始看英文书是二战史,国内这方面做得奇差,欧美的资料好得多,所以就边看边查硬啃下来的,后来就习惯了英文书,对我来说兴趣比较重要吧,我现在日文也就是只会五十音的程度,不妨碍我机翻看日轻。
Dus 发表于 2020-7-28 14:54:48
SURF-
等待阁下每周的小推荐。

如何只查看 楼主信息呢 @虫子 @滑小姬
撩月 发表于 2020-7-29 11:34:24
@Dus 进个人主页,点 收听TA 就可以了。
袁野 发表于 2020-7-31 20:12:36
Li-guru 发表于 2020-7-27 07:54
内心极其赞赏不功利性的看书的人的

这个看需求,功利性看书相对来说目地性更明确。
left_freckle 发表于 2020-8-3 14:29:06
起手有点高端啊
琦六七 发表于 2020-8-3 16:41:17
同为社畜,只能给你手动赞一个
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-3 21:25:38
琦六七 发表于 2020-8-3 16:41
同为社畜,只能给你手动赞一个

谢谢,加油~
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 01:49:20
滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 01:48
《Nostalgia for Ruins》(废墟的乡愁)
The dictionary defines nostalgia as “homesickness” or a “lo ...


Authenticity and Nostalgia
If in the late twentieth century, as Lyotard has claimed, architecture and philosophy lay in ruins, leaving us with only the option of a “writing of the ruins” as a kind of micrology, then the question arises whether the whole tradition of modernist thought all the way into postmodernism isn’t overshadowed by a catastrophic imagination and an imaginary of ruins that has accompanied the trajectory of modernity since the eighteenth century.6 Architecture in decay or a state of destruction seems to be an indispensable topos for this tradition. Real ruins of different kinds function as projective screens for modernity’s articulation of asynchronous temporalities and for its fear of and obsession with the passing of time. If, as Benjamin said, allegory in the realm of thought corresponds to the ruin in the realm of things, then this implies a production principle of modern art, literature, and architecture that is a priori directed toward the ruinous. For Adorno, in analogous fashion, the most authentic works of modernity are those that are objectively and formally determined by the ruinous state of the present. The architectural ruin seems to hover in the background of an aesthetic imagination that privileges fragment and aphorism, collage and montage, freedom from ornament and reduction of the material. Perhaps this is the secret classicism of modernism that, however different from eighteenth-century classicism in its coding of temporality and space, is still predicated on an imaginary of ruins. Classicism in Winckelmann and Goethe’s times constituted itself through the ruins of antiquity, but it aimed at the totality of style rather than privileging montage, dispersion, and fragmentariness as modernism would later do. One doesn’t have to accept a metaphysics of history in order to see the field of classical modernism as a fascinating and oscillating landscape of ruins left from a failed attempt to create an alternative kind of totality that in architecture went under the name of the International Style.
As a product of modernity rather than a phenomenon from a deep premodern past, authenticity is analogous to Benjamin’s aura. Originality and uniqueness, which characterize the auratic work of art in Benjamin, were made into privileged categories in the romantic age that was already flooded by reproductions, translations, and copies of all kinds. Analogously, the ideological value of authenticity rose in proportion to print culture’s inherent tendency to reproduction and repetition. Even in the transition from a Fordist to a post-Fordist mode of production, we can detect the attempt to return the semblance of authenticity and uniqueness to commodities by way of customization. Aura and authenticity are analogous to each other. Both have to be framed historically rather than ontologically. Modernist decisionism declared both of them dead and gone, but both have proven to be quite resistant to all manner of ideology critique. The desire for the auratic and the authentic has always reflected the fear of inauthenticity, the lack of existential meaning, and the absence of individual originality. The more we learn to understand all images, words, and sounds as always already mediated, the more, it seems, we desire the authentic and the immediate. The mode of that desire is nostalgia. A gap opens up between intellectual insight into the obsolescence of the concept and the lifeworld’s desire for the authentic. The longing for authenticity is the media and commodity culture’s romantic longing for its other. Reality TV is its pathetic expression. Authentic cuisine, authentic clothing, authentic identities of any and all kinds follow suit. The positing of stable origins and of a historical telos is never far when the authenticity tune is being played. The same is true for the discourse of ruins that has played such a central role in legitimizing the claims to power by modern nation states.
Indeed, romantic ruins guaranteed origins and promised authenticity, immediacy, and authority. However, there is a paradox. In the case of ruins that which is allegedly present and transparent whenever authenticity is claimed is present only as an absence; it is the imagined present of a past that can now only be grasped in its decay. This makes the ruin subject to nostalgia. Even if the modern ruin is not exhausted by the semantics of pastness, its temporality, which points to past glory and greatness, is different from the claims to plenitude and presentness invariably at stake in the discourse of authenticity. Authenticity claims, however, are often contaminated by doubts that then have to be compensated by further mythmaking. Thus some would claim that authentic authenticity was possible only in past ages when the world was allegedly still more transparent and not under the shadow of mass-media representation and distortion. We know what kind of ideological phantasms such projections of authenticity have caused in anthropology and other cultural sciences—the authenticity of the archaic and primitive, the privileging of
authentic community, the anomie and artificiality of modern societies. Especially in the post-Enlightenment invention of origins and national identities, the present of modernity appeared (more often than not) as a ruin of authenticity and of a better and simpler past. Against this idea of a deep authenticity embodied in the ruins of a glorified past, I posit the idea of the authentic ruin as product of modernity itself rather than as royal road toward some uncontaminated origin.
Nostalgia is never far when we talk about authenticity or about romantic ruins. The political critique of the nostalgia for ruins simply as regression corresponds to the philosophical critique of authenticity as a phantasm grounding stable identities. But such a critique misses the fundamental ambiguity of the ruin, of nostalgia, and of the authentic. However justified it may be to criticize the nostalgia markets and their ideological instrumentalization of authenticity claims, it will not do to simply identify the desire for authenticity with nostalgia and to dismiss it as a cultural disease, as Susan Stewart argues in her book On Longing.9 Neither will it do to understand the modern imagination of ruins and its link with the sublime as expressing nothing but fantasies of power and domination, though that is indeed the case for Albert Speer’s theory of ruin value. The dimension present in any imaginary of ruins but missed by such reductive critiques is the hardly nostalgic consciousness of the transitoriness of all greatness and power, the warning of imperial hubris, and the remembrance of nature in all culture.
At stake with the “authentic ruin of modernity” is not simply the genuineness (Echtheit) of specific ruins; nor is it some suprahistorical memento mori. Genuineness as naturalness in opposition to artificiality and the fake—a topos central to eighteenth-century aesthetics and middle class culture—is an empirically verifiable criterion of the ruin, and the memento mori dimension is not limited to modernity. We can speak of the modern authenticity of ruins only if we look at the ruin aesthetically and politically as an architectonic chiffre for the temporal and spatial doubts that modernity has always harbored about itself. In the ruin, history appears spatialized and built space temporalized. An imaginary of ruins is central for any theory of modernity that wants to be more than the triumphalism of progress and democratization or longing for a past power of greatness. As against the optimism of Enlightenment thought, the modern imaginary of ruins remains conscious of the dark side of modernity, that which Diderot described as the inevitable “devastations of time” visible in ruins. It articulates the nightmare of the Enlightenment that all history might ultimately be overwhelmed by nature, a fear succinctly represented in Goya’s famous etching El sueño de la razón produce monstruos.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi
The ambiguity of Goya’s title is well-known. “El sueño de la razón” means both the dream and the sleep of reason, thus pointing to what later came to be known as the dialectic of the Enlightenment. A third reading is possible, however. Imagine that the figure, dreaming or having fallen asleep at his table upon which we see the utensils of his writing, is the artist imagining the other of reason, imagining that which will become the etching—its swarm of owllike, nefarious monsters crowding his imagination. Assume Goya’s figure is Piranesi at the moment of dreaming the shape of ruins as they will come alive in his etchings. Putting the emphasis on sueño as fantasy and representation rather than simply sleep or utopian anticipation permits a reading of Piranesi as the creator of an authentic imaginary of ruins that reveals something central to modernity and its representations.
Piranesi’s etchings from the middle of the age of Enlightenment point toward a critical and alternative understanding of modernity that always stood against the naive belief in progress and the moral improvement of mankind. Although Piranesi’s nightmarish image world had a strong influence on romantic literature, romantic images of ruins in the nineteenth century mostly tended toward domesticating and beautifying ruins by way of the picturesque. It is no coincidence that Piranesi’s work was emphatically rediscovered in the twentieth century, often in the context of reductively realistic claims that his Carceri anticipated the univers concentrationnaire of fascism or Communism’s gulag or that his etchings articulated the existential exposure and cast-out state of the modern individual in the face of overwhelming systems as described in Kafka’s novels. Ignored by such readings was the inner connection between Piranesi’s fantasies of incarceration and the major part of his work: his archival documentation of the architectural ruins of the Roman Empire. Art historians tended to read the Carceri as the bizarre work of the artist as a young man, while focusing on Piranesi’s role in the eighteenth-century quarrel over whether the architecture of Athens or that of Rome should have pride of place. This question was surely central to Piranesi’s archival work in and around Rome, but exclusive focus on this debate does not pay tribute to the fact that the various reworkings of the Carceri spanned most of Piranesi’s working life. It also fails to make much of the fact that the later versions of the Carceri are visually close to the etchings of Roman ruins. With the help of an alternative body of Piranesi scholarship, especially the work of Ulya Vogt-Göknil, Piranesi’s imaginary of ruins can be adequately understood only if his archive-driven etchings of Roman ruins are read together with the fantasy-driven spaces of his architecture of incarceration. Only then can one speak of an authentic imaginary of ruins in a precise historical sense. Piranesi’s ruins and his jails are artifice through and through. That is what constitutes their authenticity within his rather dark vision of a modernity still much in the shadows of a glorious Roman past. It is an authenticity that is captured by Adorno: “The proof of the tour de force, the realization of the unrealizable, could be adduced from the most authentic works.”10 What else are the Carceri if not unrealizable as architecture and tour de force as drawing? For Piranesi and for Adorno, who never wrote about this Italian artist, the refusal of wholeness and classical closure is the sign of authenticity. Authentic ruins in Piranesi and authentic artworks in Adorno point to an absence, the utopia that cannot be named in Adorno, the nightmarish dystopia that is inscribed into the utopia of neoclassicism in Piranesi. The tour de force in Piranesi’s craft points to that moment of coercion and violence implicit in all authenticity as carrier of authority. Authentic works for Adorno are fragmentary works whose achievement must be located in their lack of completion and whose “failure [is] the measure of their success,” works such as those by Lenz, Hölderlin, Kleist, or Büchner “that succumbed to the terror of idealism’s scorn.” At first popular in France and England, Piranesi’s etchings, both of the Carceri and of the antique ruins, eventually suffered a similar fate and fell into oblivion only to be rediscovered after World War II. For the nineteenth-century ideologues of the classical tradition they were not reconcilable with a post-Winkelmannian idea of classicism, and they didn’t allow for Matthew Arnold’s vision of antiquity as sweetness and light.
The height of authentic architecture for Piranesi was the monumental Roman temples, palaces, triumphal archs, and tombs of the Via Appia. In his many volumes of etchings, from the Prima Parte di Architetture, e Prospettive (1743) and the Varie Vedute di Roma (1743) to the four volumes of Le Antichità Romane (1756) and Della Magnificenza ed Architettura de’ Romani (1761), he captured their overgrown residues with archival precision and in a decidedly unique style. Even in decay, the monumentality and sublimity of these ruins of the past were more impressive than the miserable present that denied the trained architect Piranesi any real possibility to build in grand style. Piranesi mobilized all available visual tricks to achieve the monumental mise en scène of those ruins. In the dedication to Prima Parte di Architetture of 1743 he writes, “Io vi diró solamente, che di tali immagini mi hanno riempiuto lo spirito queste parlanti ruine, che di simili non arrivai a potermene mai formare sopra i disegni, benchè accuratissimi, che di queste stesse ha fatto l’immortale Palladio, e che io pur sempre mi teneva innanzi agli occhi.” [I would only say that these speaking ruins have filled my spirit with images of a kind which even precise drawings such as those by the immortal Palladio, which I always kept before my eyes, can never conjure up.]
At stake here is the subjective effect achieved by the representation, the production of phantasms that the ruins bring to life. Speaking ruins flood the senses with architectonic images that include not only the views of antique Rome but also the Carceri. Especially in their second, significantly darker version, the Carceri show close affinities with the etchings of antique ruins. In their spatial configuration, the Carceri belong with Piranesi’s imagined antiquity rather than with the concentration camps of the twentieth century or the panoptic jails of modern industrial societies. Roman architectural elements such as arcades of columns, broad flights of stairs, large portrait busts, tomb sculptures, and Latin inscriptions fill Piranesi’s vast jails down to their distant corners. In their style of representation, however, the Carceri as well as the overgrown ruins of Rome itself belong with a present-day modernity, and not just that of the eighteenth century.
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 01:49:36
滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 01:49
Authenticity and Nostalgia
If in the late twentieth century, as Lyotard has claimed, architecture  ...


Despite all affinities, Piranesi’s views of Roman ruins are ultimately distinguished from the prison etchings and stand in productive tension with them. The ruins are located in an outside, in the urban landscape of Rome and its environs, the Campagna. Their erosion and natural decay point to that central aspect of the imaginary of ruins that Georg Simmel has emphasized best: the return of architecture to nature.
What appears all too romantically as a reconciliation of spirit and nature in Simmel, however, assumes features of the uncanny in Piranesi. Masonry and soil are organically coupled and made to look as if the ruins have grown out of the innards of the earth. In their erosion, some of the buildings appear like sublimely threatening and inhospitable rock formations. Mysteriously and uncannily these eroding and decaying monuments and remnants of gigantic buildings tower over a dwarflike present. The voices of the dead appear to speak through Piranesi’s ruin images. Instead of nature morte, Piranesi created an architettura morta, which not only reminds the present of its own transitoriness but seems to include a warning about a culturally destructive forgetting of the past. While his etchings of antique remnants focus on the intertwining of nature and architecture in decay, the Carceri present, as it were, pure architectural spaces far from all nature, complex interior halls that seem to be partly ruins, partly unfinished buildings.
This impression is exacerbated by the fact that spatial constriction typical of any prison is not constituted by the absence of space but paradoxically by an opening up of space toward infinity. Passages, staircases, and halls seem to disperse in all directions and lack spatial closure. The possibility of an outside (even when not represented) is therefore not in principle excluded. Certainly, the natural light streaming into the prisons points indirectly to some outside space. The Carceri are so fascinating because both their temporality and their spatiality remain so indefinable. Just as the opposition of proximity and distance seems abolished in their confusing spatial arrangements, the borders between past, present, and future no longer seem to obtain. Even though Piranesi was influenced by baroque theater decorations for prison dramas, his mise-en-scène of the prisons has to be read primarily as a formal architectonic proposition rather than as a simple message about the condition humaine. Bruno Reudenbach put it well when he wrote, “We see illogical spatial structures not because the goal is to represent prisons. On the contrary, building on an already developed iconography of prisons, the Carceri represent experimental space.” Piranesi was interested in prisons as a model for a vast interior space whose representation allows the artist’s architectonic fantasy to take off independent of any realistic limitations. As he had done in some of the architectonic fantasies of the Prima Parte, Piranesi canceled the laws of Euclidean space. Units of built space are connected atectonically and illogically. Any single etching requires several distinct perspectives so that the gaze of the spectator never comes to rest. The closer the spectator looks, the more his or her gaze is disturbed. In a detailed analysis of the architectural structure of the Carceri, Ulya Vogt-Göknil has shown how three-dimensional spaces evolve into two-dimensional planes, how depth dimensions are being pulled apart and breadth dimensions are being shrunk. Especially uncanny is the relationship between space and a kind of light that seems to produce darkness. Rays of light leave their natural trajectory. They bend and curve around things, sliding from one object to another, occasionally jumping over interstitial spaces. In all these instances, the walls seem to be sucking up the light instead of reflecting it. The rules of tectonics and central perspective are canceled. Horace Walpole noted of Piranesi: “He has imagined scenes that would startle geometry.” And Goethe in his Italienische Reise emphasized the difference between his perception of real ruins and Piranesi’s attempt to create effects through fabulation.
Contrary to certain claims, such observations must not be attributed to some inability or to simple playfulness on Piranesi’s part. Piranesi refused to represent homogeneous enlightened space in which above and below, inside and outside could be clearly distinguished. Instead he privileged arches and bridges, ladders and staircases, anterooms and passageways. While massive and static in their encasings, the prisons do suggest motion and transition, a back and forth, up and down that disturbs and unmoors the gaze of the spectator. Instead of viewing limited spaces from a fixed-observer perspective and from a safe distance, the spectator is drawn into a proliferating labyrinth of staircases, bridges, and passageways that seem to lead into infinite depths left, right, and center. It is as if the spectator’s gaze is imprisoned by the represented space, lured in and captured because no firm point of view can be had as the eye wanders around in this labyrinth. Contrary to what Alexander Kupfer claims, this does not suggest that space and time lose all meaning.19 The lack of central perspective and a firm point of view, the proliferation of perspectives and unfolding of spaces must be read differently: Piranesi followed to their logical conclusion the spatialization of history and the temporalization of space that already characterized his etchings of antiquities. In his Carceri d’invenzione—the modifying noun is significant—times and spaces are shoved into each other, telescoped and superimposed as if in a palimpsest whereby this complex temporally fraying imagination of space becomes itself a prison of invention. Tour de force, as Adorno says of what are to him the most authentic works of art.
Manfredo Tafuri has argued that by breaking with the temporal and spatial perspectivalism of the Renaissance, the Carceri d’invenzione already point toward basic principles of construction as developed much later by the cubists, constructivists, and surrealists.20 Equally important, however, is a fundamental difference between Piranesi and the historical avant-garde. Piranesi’s imagination is not energized by some constructive utopian ideal of multiperspectivalism and spatial fluidity (Eisenstein); nor does he privilege montage or the fragment in the same way. He rather remains haunted by the threatening aura of ruins, by their oppressive interlocking of past and present, nature and culture, death and life. The work undermines any enlightened and secure standpoint in the course of time and in the location in space, and it is quite distant from the avant-garde’s ethos of alternative futures. Ultimately, Piranesi’s prisons are also ruins, more authentic even than the Roman ruins of the Vedute di Roma. The irritating and threatening simultaneity of times and spaces, of condensed and displaced perspectives, which is exacerbated in the second version of the prison etchings by the increased presence of torture instruments, pushes the impression of uncanny space to an extreme only in the Carceri.
Conclusion
In their reciprocal tension and their obsessive intermingling of times and spaces, Piranesi’s prisons and ruins can be read as allegories of a modernity whose utopia of freedom and progress, linear time and geometric space they not only question but cancel out. A past embodied in ruined and memory-laden architecture seems to tower over the present of the age of Enlightenment. Piranesi’s imaginary of ruins is thus the product of an age that only slowly freed itself from the overwhelming ideal of classical antiquity. In its decay, antique architecture articulates that dialectical constellation of nature and history that posits the changeability and contingency of both nature and history instead of opposing blind mythological nature to history as enlightened ontological agency. Piranesi’s work thus belongs with a self-critical consciousness that has accompanied enlightened modernity from its beginning. The authenticity of Piranesi’s imaginary of ruins lies in this critical aesthetic consciousness and its articulation in terrifyingly beautiful etchings. If the etchings of decaying classical architecture point to a natural history of destruction in a Sebaldian mode, then the Carceri suggest a cultural history of incarceration in an infinite inner space that no longer has any outside—a critique of Romanticism avant la lettre.
Reading Piranesi through Adorno and through Benjamin’s concept of natural history, which is grounded in a philosophy of history, will also reveal the historical limits of this authentic imaginary of ruins. As a form of secularized theology with its rises and falls, declines and redemptions of cultures, the philosophy of history produced by the Enlightenment stands itself like a ruin in our twenty-first-century present. Analogously, Piranesi’s imaginary of ruins has itself become a ruin. Modernist architecture points to another historical boundary of an imaginary of ruins à la Piranesi. Concrete, steel, and glass building materials aren’t subject to erosion and decay the way stone is. Modernist architecture refuses the return of culture to nature. Furthermore, the real catastrophes of the twentieth century have mainly left rubble rather than ruins in Piranesi’s sense, even if some of that rubble has lent itself quite well to beautifying representations. The age of the “authentic ruin,” at any rate, is over; its genealogy can be written, but it cannot be resurrected. The present is an age of preservation, restoration, and authentic remakes, all of which cancel out the idea of the authentic ruin that has itself become historical. But Piranesi’s ruins are accessible to reflective nostalgia. They embody a dialectic of modernity that should be remembered as we try to imagine a future beyond the false promises of corporate neoliberalism and the globalized shopping mall. The future, not just of nostalgia, is at stake.
羚芈 发表于 2020-8-5 08:49:10
刚看完第二篇,最近在看那本文革笑料集,有时间也把楼主推荐的找来读一下。
另外稍微提一个建议:楼主能把每周推荐的楼层链接复制出来,在一楼依次罗列。可以方便大家阅读。
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 09:06:33
羚芈 发表于 2020-8-5 08:49
刚看完第二篇,最近在看那本文革笑料集,有时间也把楼主推荐的找来读一下。
另外稍微提一个建议: ...


好建议,谢谢,但是我不知道每层的链接怎么复制,我先把每周推荐的内容贴上一楼。
羚芈 发表于 2020-8-5 10:32:58
滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 09:06
好建议,谢谢,但是我不知道每层的链接怎么复制,我先把每周推荐的内容贴上一楼。 ...

单击一下每层楼的右上角楼层数(有时候是推荐),可以复制链接。
例如第二更 《Hammer And Tickle: A History Of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes》
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-5 10:58:09
羚芈 发表于 2020-8-5 10:32
单击一下每层楼的右上角楼层数(有时候是推荐),可以复制链接。
例如第二更 《Hammer And Tickle: A Hi ...

好的谢谢
羚芈 发表于 2020-8-5 11:23:45

不客气,期待越办越好哦。:D
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-11 06:54:05
《定县农村工业调查》自序中关于具体调查方法的第一部分
我们调查所用的方法,有的材料是用问题表搜集的,有的材料不能用问题表去搜集,就根据问题的性质,拟成详细的纲目,分别去调查得来的。这样去搜集材料,才不致于受了调査表的束缚;同时有许多平常很不容易得到的事实,现在却也把它发现出来。此次所用的调查表,有村概况与以家做单位之家庭工业问题表两种,村概况与以家做单位之作坊工业问题表两种,共四种。村概况家庭工业问题表包括的项目,有工业种类,家数,从事工作人数,工作所在月份,从事工作者平均每日大约工作小时数,全年出货数量价值与赚利,原料种类,货物销僐地点,增原因等。村概况作坊工业问题表包括的项目,有作坊种类,家数,组织,资本,服务人数,整年工作或工作所在月份,每日大约工作小时数,工资,全年出货数量,价值及除去一切开销之赚利,原料种类,货物销售地点,增减原因等。关于详细家庭工业问题表所包括之项目有家中人口数,自有田产亩数,家长主要职业,从事家庭工业者之亲属称谓,年龄,从事工业种类,开始从事时年龄,已从事年数,全年工作所在月份,全年工作日数佔计,平均每日工作小时数,全年出货数量,价值及赚利,全年出货自用与卖出价值之百分比,货物销售地点,全年全家大约一切收入,支出,盈余或亏短总数。关于以家做单位之作坊工业问题表与村概况作坊工业问题表包括之项目相同无需再说。至于各种工业之历史与沿革,各种工业制度之演进,エ业品制造之手续与方法,所用机械之种类与构造,与工业有关系之各种商业组织,学徒制度之内容,包装运销之方法,经济税佣之情形,工业品输出之状況等皆另备大纲,由著者亲身到本县整村,各镇,各集市,各庙会实际观察,随时询问,将所得材料记载下来,以供整理与编辑。此外,凡是经本处调查员搜集的村料,著者都一一的检阅,有时也派人复查,遗漏与以补充,错误与以校正,以期所得的材知可靠。本处调查员虽然多是本地人,生在定县,长在定县,对于定县农村之情形,都颇熟悉,对于调查也都颇有经验;著者在调查时仍常是同他们一起下乡,参加实地调查的工作,与以随时的指导,调查员遇到问题,就帮助他们解决,因此在调查期间虽然遇见了不少的因难;但是却都把它们应付过去了,比如说。在调查各村家庭工业的时候,关于从事各种家庭工业之家数,人数,エ作小时数,赚利,出货总量都发生了困难。现在把一两种有趣味的,不妨提出说一说。从事家庭工业之家庭有只从事种者,有从事两种及以上者。有的家庭只从事纺线或织布,有的家庭却从事纺线兼织布,或纺线兼他种工业,这种实际从事各种家庭工业之家数,很不容易得到。到一个村庄,问他们村中在一年里面纺线的有多少家,织布的有多少家,或做豆腐的有多少家等等,这样单独去问,他们倒容易回答佔计。要问他们村中在一年里面,只从事纺线的有多少家,只织布的有多少家,纺线兼织布的有多少家,纺线兼做豆腐的有多少家等等,这样去问,他们的确感党很困难,并且事实上也办不到。就是勉强得到数字,也不能准确。因此关于这种实际家数,只好根据一般的情況与调查的结果来估计,得到一个大概。至于从事各种家庭工业的人数,其困难与家数相同,无须再讲。关于从事各种家庭エ业之平均每日大约工作小时数,农民多不能回答。要知一般农民根本就没有小时的观念,他们的饮食起居及其他一切日常生活均以日头为标准。因此我们就想出一个方法向他们。拿从事纺线的人数来说吧,我们问他们村中多半是整天纺线的男女各约有多少人,多半纺半天或多半天线的男女各约有多少人,多半纺不到半天线的男女各约有多少人。整天纺线的当然是工作8小时以上的,纺半天或多半天线的当然是工作4至不满8小时的,纺不到半天线的当然是工作4小时的。
挨家调査家庭工业的时候,问到全年大约工作日数,农民多不能回答。要知从事家庭工业多在农闲,所以我们先问他们农闲几个月大约作多少天,再问年中其他各月大约作多少天,把这两个数目加到一起,便得到全年大约工作日数总计。问到个人全年出货数量,也多记不清楚」我们只好问他们大概每天能出货多少,然后再根据全年工作日数与平均每日大约工作小时数估计全年出货量。关于农家全年一切收支总数,农民多算不出来,我们只得根据家中的田产,人口,全年家庭工业赚利及一般生活程度等来估计。能够回答的农家,我们也将回答的数目与家中的园产,人口,及其他校对,看看是否准确。
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-11 06:57:43
《定县农村工业调查》自序中关于具体调查方法的第二部分
调査作坊工业最困难的就是资本,因为一问到资本就容易怀疑到增加营业税。普通总是把资本说的太低。关于以村作单位的调查,只问一问各种作坊普通资本,最高资本与最低资本。关于城关以家作单位的,所调査出来的资本,只好请几位城内熟习商情的买卖人替我们校对一下。工资普通都愿意说的较高,一方面表示优待工人,一方面表示花费较大花费一大,当然赚利就小。我们只得托人辗转打听,得一比较可靠数字。他如原料购买的地点,全年出货的数量,全年赚利之多少,机械之价值及所购地点,询问时也都有相当的困难,此处无须详述。
一般家庭工业或作坊工业出品之制造方法,已经就很不容易搜集到手;至于秘密祖传的方法,外人筒直难以探询出来,书中关于这一部分的材料,多半是由于亲友的关系,辗转相托而得来的,可以说真是费尽了九牛二虎之力。
还有几个问题要在这里说一说。第一个就是单位问題。同一种工业品,其单位就各有不同,如布之匹,线之两等。定县农家所织之土布如大布,庄布,紫花布与花条布,固然每匹的尺寸,差别颇多,就是大布与大布,庄布与庄布,其每匹尺寸,亦有分别。因此书中所讲庄布之每匹尺寸都是根据民国20年定县各地布店收买庄布最普通的每匹尺寸而定,然后折合成英尺的。其他各种土布之每匹尺寸是根据民国20年定县各区各该种土布最普遍的每匹尺寸而定,然后折合成英尺的。定县线的两数,各村大小亦多不相同;有3,5两为ー斤者,有4,5两为一斤者还有5,5两为一斤者,都是按照各该村附近之线子市所定的每斤线的两数为标准。普通农民纺线都按两说,而两与两的重量又不相等,因此我们调查时,线子虽有两计算,可是我们根据各村附近线子市所定之每斤两数折合成斤数。其他单位不相等者,亦按法折合,使其单位划一。
第二是价格问题,同一种工业品之每单位价格,就各有不同。关于庄布系根据民国20年定县各布店所收庄布之平均实际价格而定。其他各种比较普通的工业品则系根据民国20年定县各大集镇之每单位之普通价格之总平均而定。至于某村或某几个村庄所特有的工业品,其每单位之价格,则只系根据该村或该几个村庄全年最普通的价格而定。以上所说是关于定县453村家庭手工业与作坊工业之村概况调查。至于定县城关作坊工业与各种家定エ业之详细挨家调查,则系根据各家于调查年销售各种工业品之普通价格。
第三是赚利问题。这里要特别说明的就是从事家庭工业所得之赚利与作坊所得之赚利不同。从事家庭工业之赚利,系指除原料费用外,每单位之家庭工业出品的收入。换旬话说,就是从事某种工业品每单位的平均价格,减去各种原料费之总和;所余即系由该种工业品所得的平均赚利。不称之为赚利,称之为收入亦可;不称之为收入,称之为劳力之代价亦可;不称之为劳力之代价,称之为“工夫钱”亦可。至于作坊之赚利,则系指除去一切费用外,如原料,工资,房租,煤火,伙食及其他开支等,全年所得之纯利而言。
第四是度量衡的问题。民国23年1月定县县ZF改换度量衡新器,当时本报告之统计材料早已整理完毕,并且编辑亦将告蛟,困此很难将已有的统计,根据度量衡新器重新折合修改。为补偿这种遗憾,我们特制了一个定县新旧度量衡折合表,放在附录内,以备读者参考。
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-8-24 01:07:06
周云蓬《北大——献给海子》
你死去已经十年了,你写诗的年代我还在读唐诗。我们相距10光年,1999年我才开始真正关注你,并且认真地读你的长诗与短诗。3月26日,我去你的母校参加你的纪念诗会,会场门口戒备森严,比进核武器基地还难。起初我没有入场券,被轰了出来。后来我要了一张入场券,可门卫又要我出示身份证、工作证,还追问我票是从哪弄来的。我愤怒以致悲哀,悲哀的是你竟成为了一处新开发的旅游景观,门票昂贵的旅游景观,贵的恐怕连你自己都买不起。好在你的诗印成了书,书可以自由地流传。

27号凌晨我写下了这些文字,作为献给你的生日礼物,同时献给你的母亲—

我背着吉他进北大,门卫说:人可以进去,琴必须留下
我留着头发进北大,门卫说:人可以进去,头发必须留下
我点燃名字进北大,门卫说:人可以进去,证件必须留下

我拿出身份证。

门卫说:还有。我拿出工作证。
门卫说:还有。我拿出团员证。
门卫说:还有。我拿出户口本。
门卫说:还有。我拿出购粮证。
门卫说:还有。我拿出死亡证......

于是,我背着自己的尸体走进了北大。

淌过了泥泞的胃液,摸索着粘滑的胃壁,我寻找那粒晶莹的珍珠米,它应未被消化,它是诗人的遗孀,我将带他重返又苦又香的秋天。这时我看见未名湖水——一面溅满雪花膏的浅浅的镜子,养育了太多太多色彩艳丽的塑料鱼和故作凶恶的橡胶螃蟹;一把把幽雅的花伞,向着垂天的雨云,羞涩地盛开。我看见那草地,那些草原上被掠来的绿色的孩子,悠悠地唱着思乡的挽歌。粘着唾沫的瓜子皮载不动许多的文化,载不动许多的废话,沉入土地;一方方花纹精巧的印章,蛮横地盖上:北大。我看见衰老的蔡元培,囚禁在墓穴中,年轻时染上的哮喘病至今未愈,他午夜的咳嗽声雷一样轰击着墓门。我看见孩子一次次被谋杀--

在盛大的纪念诗会上,
在鸡鸣般准确无误的掌声中,
在混血儿不中不洋的口音中,
在风度翩翩的诗人所用的男生化妆品中,
在女孩子窃窃私语的疑问中:海子到底因为什么死的?
你们到底因为什么死?你们到底因为什么不死?我到底因为什么活着?
最后我看见自己是一首瞎眼的无词歌。踉跄着被赶下琴弦。

1999年3月27日
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-9-8 21:25:26
Dus 发表于 2020-9-8 16:41
SURF-
请问 本月推荐是什么呢?
书记、随笔、电影观感还是 如何?

不好意思刚看到,感谢提醒,在楼下补下档。
 楼主| 滑小姬 发表于 2020-9-13 22:40:03
本周推荐的是赵星,李盛庆,叶鹰等著《H型指数和H型测度研究》,算是一本图书情报学领域工具书,可作为科研管理与评价、科技政策、科学计量学、信息计量学、文献计量学、图书情报与档案管理等相关领域研究者和工作者的业务参考用书,也可作为信息资源管理、信息管理与信息系统、科学学与技术管理、图书馆学、情报学与文献学等相关专业的本科生和研究生的专题教材。

H指数是21世纪以来科学计量和信息计量领域最具创新的发现之一,学术界不仅已经研究了各种H型指数,而且发展出多种H型测度和独具特色的抽取核心结构的量化测度方法。本书在阐明H型指数和H型测度来龙去脉的基础上,对H型指数和H型测度的理论机理、实证研究和应用拓展等进行系统探索。全书分为五篇,从各类代表性的H型指数说起,随后分别在理论研究、应用研究和拓展研究三个方面进行系统性探索,最后导出有特色的H型网络测度。全书第一篇主要由赵星和叶鹰等主笔,第二篇由叶鹰和赵星撰写,李盛庆、叶鹰和赵星等合作完成了第三篇,第四篇主要由赵星和叶鹰等完成,最后一篇由赵星主笔。

该书课题组于近十年中,对H指数、H型指数和H型测度进行坚持不懈的探索,先后发表了约30篇国际论文和10余篇中文论文,完成三个国家自然科学基金项目(“h-指数和类 h-指数的机理分析与实证研究”(批准号:70773101)、“专利 h 指数与专利信息网络测度研究”(批准号:71173187)和“h 型信息网络测度的机理与实证研究”(批准号:71503083)),其中精华皆在本著作中。

该书作者前言部分的结尾为:“纵观全书,H 指数虽可谓影响深远,但仍难以称为 ‘最好的测度’。欣慰的是,它让我们看到最好测度应有之特点:简洁、巧妙、富含信息、独一无二。较完整地呈现 H 指数及相关拓展是本书目的,但不是我们全部目标,通过 H 型测度研究追寻最好测度的足迹才是本书的立著之意。限于水平,不足难免,只盼对读者有所启示,引发更多的批判、合作与创新。”

2020.9.13
Dus 发表于 2020-9-25 10:40:48
滑小姬 发表于 2020-9-8 21:38
补9.6周的档
本周推荐的是《空王冠》系列,喜欢权游系列不要错过,《空王冠》是BBC在12年和16年推出的两季 ...


SURF-
还在浏览这个文段的内容《空王冠 》,毕竟涉及的历史长度、跨度等等都十分的漫长而多变,(尽管没有东方文明的源远流长与连绵不断);

名字也不是那么合乎 东方文明的命名习惯与要求,看了一段时间会混乱的记忆相关的王朝与王位的更迭下政策的变更,
或许,这也是 他们适应习惯法与世俗惯例的考量,以至于 法典与法规浩瀚却没有中心法典或宪法基本点、基本法;这对于 以中央集权为体的发展路线下养成的观察思维的我们,理解起来颇有些有趣而异样。
目前,配合着 BBC推出的空王冠电影集,了解其中逻辑与岛上民众对这段历史的看法与脉络,或许会渐入佳境。

如:The Hollow Crown
空王冠 :《理查二世》(Richard II)、《亨利四世:第一部》(Henry IV, Part 1)、《亨利四世:第二部》(Henry IV, Part 2)和《亨利五世》(Henry V)。
空王冠第二季 :根据莎士比亚同名剧集改编拍摄,由本尼迪克特·康伯巴奇饰演理查三世,"卷福"变身英格兰国王征战沙场气场全开;
理查三世/空王冠:玫瑰战争3:这次电视电影系列可算作其续篇,除了理查德三世,还会制作亨利六世上下两部电视电影。

https://www.chongbuluo.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=7454
可参考上面的地址,使用mvcat 或  神马影视。


--------------------
每当读到历史的变动与轮转迅猛变换中,都不免出戏而入生活,或许是想要写平和宁静的文字来对冲这样的不宁心境。
念及此处,顾随、叶嘉莹、冰心等等诗词文字、翻译文学都不免落入演示;
顾随暂且不谈次,倒是废名等文字的空灵流入本次谈话中:《桥》倒是有所感叹。

废名禅学思想由“观心看净”到“无相无念无住”的转变,导致其创作由空灵静寂转向自由洒脱,呈现出不同的风格特征。
《竹林的故事》、《桃园》、《枣》、《桥》是第一阶段的代表作。这一时期的小说从整体上看是远离现实人生和当代社会问题的,即使有,却也何其微弱,尤其是越到后来,我们几乎找不到半点当时甚为时尚的作家主观的对于现实人生的哀愁或者抗议。
《菱荡》所描绘的完全是一幅不知有汉无论魏晋的世外桃源。
小说《桥》更是废名精心营造的通向宁静禅境的美丽桥梁。作品中的史家庄,处处是“东方朔日暖,柳下惠风和”式的平和宁静,人们男耕女织、知足常乐,人性淳美,古风习习。小林、琴子、细竹无论是儿时还是长大后均天真、纯朴,他们和睦相处,一反一般小说中所描写的那种三角恋爱的生活模式,丝毫没有情人与情敌之间的种种猜测、怀疑与色心斗角。废名只为我们提供了一幅幅静美的中国画,却并不引导人们去着力思考社会现实问题。
静寂意境的营造是这个时期小说的另一个美学特征。
《桥》中的三哑等,他们的单纯、质朴、少受尘世污染,更具自然本性,他们没有如簧的巧舌去制造那些令人作呕的噪音,他们精神丰富而形式却简单宁静。陈聋子便具有极强的象征意义,因为耳聋,他的世界永远是宁静的,尘世的噪音唯他能充耳不闻,也不见他轻易说话,唯其如此,他才能真正地守自己的本真心,才能自由地去体认世界万物的真如本相。在静中弥漫着一股孤独、清冷的氛围,透露出一种孤寂之感,是废名意境的重要特点。在废名作品中,他大量使用坟、送路灯、落日、箫、孤雁、庙檐上的风铃、碑、树荫等意象符号,以造成一种神秘、清幽、孤独的气氛。《桥·习字》写小林看雁阵,也引发出一种孤独之感:“远远两排雁飞来,写着很大的‘一人’在天上,深秋的天气,没有太阳,也没有浓重的云,淡淡的两手抚着母亲的发,尽尽的望。”仿佛那天底下便只有这“一人”了。小林一开始认字便是这“一人”二字,在废名也许是颇有深意的。
废名这一时期的创作消解现实意义,隐逸了情感倾向,突出的是静寂的诗的意境,而构成这静寂意境“境眼”的便是作品中所表达的对于自然、人生的直觉与顿悟。废名小说可以说是直觉的大串联,《菱荡》中这样写菱荡的水:“如果是熟客,绕到进口的地方进去玩,一眼要上下闪,天与水。停了脚,水里唧唧响,——水仿佛是这一个一个的声音填的!”在废名小说里,我们随处都可以看到通感与联觉的运用,如“草是那么吞着阳光绿,疑心它在那里慢慢的闪跳,或者数也数不清的唧咕”,由视觉而听觉,二者融为一体,这种通感,联沉正是直觉思维的一个重要特征。
废名的语言是跳跃式的,简洁而空灵,因其空灵,如果没有充分的联想、想象,句与句,段与段之间就会产生一种“隔”的感觉,令读者如坠云里雾里。比如写花红山,“没有风,花似动,——花山是火山!白日青天增了火之焰。”如果说前一个比喻“花山是火山”还不是很出格的话,后一个比喻却如同飞来巨石,一不留意便会砸得晕头转向。废名这样的一种语言的独特性与他强调主体的感觉、顿悟直接相关。要传达出独特的感觉必须需要独特的语言。因此,在废名那里,独特的语言与独特的感觉是那么浑然地融为一体。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表