Monthly Archives: 6月 2010

Obama走马换将,美军阿富汗新战略呼之欲出

近闻麦克里斯特尔离开阿富汗,放出一篇旧文以纪念之……

————————————————————————————————————————

作者:归宿青年

上周美军有两项重要的人事任免变化。

一是5月12日,美国南方司令部司令、海军上将Stavridis接替陆军上将Craddock,成为新一任的北约最高军事指挥官。这一职位长期以来被陆军把持,Stavridis是第一位担任这一职务的海军将领,这也大大出乎各方的意料。Stavridis也是一员儒将,1984年以优异成绩毕业于Tufts University的The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,获得国际关系博士学位。他以公开支持smart power闻名,认为要达成既定目标,不能仅仅靠军事力量,更要靠政治外交等综合力量的相互协调。

二是5月11日,the director of Joint Staff(我理解是参联会办公厅主任,国内新闻稿翻译似乎不准确)、陆军中将McChrystal被任命为新的驻阿富汗美军司令,原司令、陆军上将 McKiernan则被屈辱地公开解职。McChrystal堪称传奇人物,他之前有长期的特种作战部队服役的经历,曾长期担任美国最神秘的Joint Special Operation Command(国内新闻稿翻成特种作战司令部,同样不准确)的司令,在01年推翻塔利班以及06年清除扎卡维的行动中都扮演了重要的角色。 McChrystal出身军旅世家,工作态度极端认真负责。据报道,McChrystal每天早上四点起床,跑步上班,一边跑一边用听ipod里面的音频书,6点半开始视频会议,之后一直工作到晚上8点。每天睡眠时间不超过5个小时,最可怕的是,他每天只吃一顿饭,理由是人吃的太多会导致懒散。

美军的这两项人事任免的目标很明确,那就是要解决阿富汗问题。Obama上台之后,阿富汗已经取代伊拉克,成为美国政治外交方面的头号问题。自从 2008年以来,阿富汗的局势一直在恶化。obama宣布增兵13000人后,形势依然未见好转。塔利班以及基地组织以巴阿边境为据点,不断向驻阿联军发动进攻。同时,塔利班势力开始向巴基斯坦渗透,并以Swat Valley为基地反击围剿的巴基斯坦政府军,甚至一度前进到距离伊斯兰堡只有60公里的位置。扎尔达里的政权本来就不牢固,经过此番折腾,更加风雨飘摇。对于美国来说,扎尔达里倒台倒不是什么大事,问题是如果伊斯兰极端主义者趁乱获得了巴基斯坦核武器的控制权,美国的麻烦就大了。

阿富汗局势如此严峻,走马换将换思路也成了obama的必然选择。从这次的人事变化中,我们也可以看出下一步美军在阿富汗战役的组织管理以及具体战役战术层面上的变化。任用Stavridis就体现了美军改革战役组织管理的决心。当前在阿富汗执行任务的由北约领导的国际安全部队,由来自37个国家的将近60000人组成,如何组织协调好与这些国家之间的关系,让他们继续支持在阿富汗的军事行动,就是北约最高司令面临的最大问题。从这个角度看,由国际关系博士,充分理解政治军事外交三方面相协调重要性的Stavridis出任这一职位,也是最好的选择。而由McChrystal出任新的驻阿富汗美军司令,则表明了美军在战役战术层面的变化,即彻底抛弃传统的陆军步兵战术,将特种作战和反叛乱作战进行到底。实践证明,在面对塔利班武装的游击战术时,美军传统的作战方法受到了很大的制约,美军巡逻队被塔利班游击队伏击的案例也屡见不鲜。在这种情况下,非常规作战,特种作战就成为了美军的必然选择。所以,由长期组织指挥特种作战经验,本身也是特种兵出身的McChrystal担任这一职位,也是很理所当然的事情。

另外可以注意的是,这两项人事调整后,美军在阿富汗形成了McChrystal, Stavridis和Petraeus的三驾马车。我个人认为这个阵容搭配是相当合理的。Petraeus在伊拉克时候,就以特种作战和反叛乱作战闻名,Bush任命他为中央司令部司令,就是希望他能将在伊拉克反叛乱作战的成功经验推广到阿富汗。相比较传统步兵出身的 McKiernan,McChrystal无疑可以更好的贯彻Petraeus的作战思路,更何况McChrystal还和Petraeus有着良好的个人关系。从大的方面看,解决阿富汗问题不只只是军事问题,还与周边的政治外交关系息息相关。不仅要摆平北约盟友内部的协调问题,还要摆平俄罗斯、伊朗、中国、巴基斯坦的影响。这个就需要政治家的智慧了。而由Petraeus和Stavridis这两个国际关系博士来处理这个问题,至少在知识结构上是没问题的。所以,总体来看目前美军在阿富汗重新制订的大致战略方向是正确的,对此参联会主席Mullen也是很有信心,他表示,美军有信心在18-24个月内改变阿富汗的局势。但是具体操作怎么样,还有待继续观察。

留学日本专业比较: 理工科、文科、与研究

在当今23个尖端科技领域里面,日本已经在16个领域里面占优势,在4个领域里面占比较优势(美国在8个领域里占优势在15个领域占比较优势)。美国国防部曾透露:美国在人工智能和自动化,光导纤维,半导体材料与微电子电路,超导,仿生技术材料与处理等5个领域的技术落后于日本。

今天的我们可以看到,日本实际上已经在消费类电子产品(游戏机,MP3,DVD),半导体,制造业工艺,办公设备和电信设备等领域雄居第一。只是在计算机和软件方面未拔得头筹。80年代末90年代初,世界上十大微型芯片公司六家是日本公司;世界十大电子公司中,五家是日本公司。直到93年美国INTEL公司取代日本东芝公司成为世界上最大的半导体制造商。

目前,在电子技术,生物技术,新材料技术,新能源技术和宇航技术五大高技术领域,日本在前两项技术上已居世界领先地位。尤其是生物,小泉内阁准备在未来5年以内为日本培养60万名生物人才,在这个领域,留学生是很有机会的。所以说去日本学理科工科的学生最好学这2项技术。

基础材料领域也是日本的天下。日本神户炼钢厂,住友金属公司和三菱金属公司联合开发了钛钨硬质合金,此为美国制造机动型控制雷达,制造战斗机和潜艇所必须的材料,必须向日本购买,日本东北大学在材料领域尤其是金属材料领域的研究水平是世界第一,这也是世界皆知的。当然这类名牌大学的学部要求很高的留统成绩和二次试验成绩才能进。

在日本学以上理工学科是很有前途的,学成以后即使不在日本就业,也可以考虑拿美国学校的OFFER,毕竟美国的大学对日本这方面学科的学生是很认同的,教授的推荐信也远远比中国大学的教授具备含金量。

另外纠正大家一个常识性的错误,总的来说,日本的经济学水平远远不如美国,也比不了欧洲,同香港比也有一定的差距。

日本计划50年拿30个 nobel,但就经济学来说,唯一的希望是搞数学的伊藤清,他虽然不懂经济学,但他的概率积分是现代金融,金融工程的基础。除了伊藤,日本人对于经济学基本没有什么大的贡献。

就研究成果来说,能在国际权威学术杂志上发论文的日本教授不多。这些能发论文的教授大都集中在各帝国大学,筑波及庆应。但这些教授的论文的质及量同美国,欧洲,香港比都有差距。

日本经济学最高峰的研究机构并不在各个大学的大学院,而是两个研究所:京都大学经济研究所,大阪大学社会经济研究所。当然这两个研究所也是培养硕士,博士的机构。如果希望在日本读经济学博士的,这两个研究所是首选。在这两所研究所之外,现代经济学(以数学为基础)好的大学院有东大,京都大,大阪大,东北大,筑波大。

http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/~kaji…n_stat_data.pdf

http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/~kaji…e_of_shaken.htm

另外看看这篇文章: Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics

在这篇文章中,作者就经济学的国际学术杂志及研究机构进行了比较分析,最后给出了一个排名。作者排出了世界前200名的研究机构。感兴趣的请读原文,我先根据文章给个大概统计,说句实话,小小一个香港可为中国争了不少光。

前17名都是美国名校;欧洲最好的排在18,20,25名;加拿大最好的排在23名。北美欧洲外能排进前60名的只有香港科技大学的37位。

亚,澳洲能进榜的有:香港科技大学37,澳洲62,澳洲81,香港中文大学84,大阪大学105,筑波大学116,东京大学136,澳洲139,汉城大学144,新加坡国立大学156,香港大学164,澳洲168,澳洲173,韩国176,东北大学178,韩国179,台湾181,京都大学 183,一桥大学195,澳洲199。

文章连接如下:

http://www.econ.ucy.ac.cy/papers/0110.pdf

如果你现在要进日本的学部学习, 我劝大家一句: 作为外国人,想在日本拿个学位,积累几年工作经验回国; 或者是拿(经济,经营学)博士学位,将来做学者的话,建议大家尽可能学理工. 如果已经是经济,经营学部的学生的话,到3年级也应该尽量进经营数理类的研究室,多修一些数理类及计算机类的课. 对于外国人,学文科的出路太窄.日本文科生最好的出路是考律师;或者是考公务员,将来能在国家或者是地方从政.次一点的是到银行,证券公司工作. 再次的到企业. 政府部门及银行,证券公司是文科生的天下.理工科的几乎没有什么地位(学数学的除外,搞金融的很多是数学人才).

下面说说企业:

企业是理工科的地位高于文科.日本企业更看重理工科毕业生,中高层管理者大都是理工科出身,在企业干几年有了实际经验,再到美国修个MBA的占多数(现在在日本修的也不少了). 在企业里文科生较活跃的部门是人事部门,会计部门.而这两个部门基本是不会用外国人来担当的; 生产部门是工科生的天下;

市场部门由于涉及到需求预测,需要建立及求解数理模型,因此学理科(如数学)及经营数理类专业(如经营统计,经营工学,经营情报)的是主力,而学经营战略等的做辅助; 另外就是售后服务部门,这个部门工科,文科的学生都有. 如果是产品质量,技术问题, 工科的担当; 如果是杂事,来胡搅的则是文科生出面.

考虑到中国留学生文科毕业后在日本当律师,到政府,到银行证券公司工作的机会非常小.而到企业,由于你干不了技术活,又由于你是外国人,基本不可能让你干管理日本人的管理职.干到40多,能当个不管人的小课长估计就到头了. 平常的工作基本也是以打杂,翻译中文为主.

一个比较遗憾的事实是经营学硕士毕业后在日本公司打杂,做翻译的留学生太多了(连博士都有).

因此我建议大家,如果你想在日本学部毕业后在日本工作, 真正学点东西的话,我推荐理工科. 你可以学一门理工, 到日本企业工作,有2,3经验后,再修个MBA, 这是比较理想的一条路. 如果你一定选经济,经营学部的话, 最好3年级的时候, 进数理类的研究室, 如经营工学,经营统计,经营情报等等.

如果你将来想读经济,经营学的博士,做教授的话. 建议各位学部读数学,大学院再转入经济,经营领域. 现在先端研究全是数学建模.

另外我所了解的经济,经营类日本及中国非常急需的专业有 金融工程 (金融工学Financial Engineering), 供应链管理 (サプライ.チェイン.マネジメント SCM:Supply Chain Management), ERP (Enterprise Requirement Planning), 项目管理(プロジェクト.マネジメント Project Management)等等. 都是近几年才出来的新东西. 不过这些都是 MBA 的课程,也是中国需要的,各位可以根据情况选学.

林志玲的语录

1、这句话似乎和“林志玲”的名字一样如雷贯耳,志玲姐姐所到之处无不留下这两个字的踪影.嗲嗲的一声“加油”,使本来在大众眼中充满情色味的模特儿立刻变地积极向上起来,使她深受男女老少喜爱,同时也开创了所谓的“无公害性感”。

经典场景:金马奖上为梁朝伟、刘德华“加油”,并送上“祝福的拥抱”。

2.“才不会忘记你呢!”“不要再给我打分数!”

这两句话皆出自一个酸奶广告,是早期林志玲展现“超级嗲功“的代表作,现在已经不多见了。广告中,志玲姐姐穿着清凉露背装,睡眼惺忪的叫着酸奶的名字,连女生看了都会热血沸腾。她聪明得以“娃娃音”为识别标志,暴红速度让人探为观止。

3、“上天莫名其妙给了我知名度,我却只有一个大问号!”“如果是这样的话,我谢谢他”

所有人都无法说清楚林志玲走红的原因,作为30岁的模特,理应过气的她在没有一部成名作的情况下就红便了半边天,在台湾掀起了一股“林志玲热”,更有甚者说,这股“林志玲热”是台湾近10年的一个重大“现象”。在这种情况下,媒体纷纷向她发难,认为他是借绯闻或是显赫家世上位,但她处事不惊的态度将这一切一一化解。

4、“花瓶吗?很好啊,这也是对外表的一种肯定方式,我会把它看作赞美,再说声谢谢。当然,如果你真的对这只花瓶有兴趣,随着时间的推移,你会看到真实的我。”

大家说她是花瓶,她就大胆承认。她的话语虽然柔柔软软,但是却犹如太极推手,四两拨千斤,以刀御力,充分体现美貌与智慧并重的最高境界。

5、“你看,我这样的年纪有这么多机遇,也是自己从来没有想过的。所以希望通过我让大家看到30岁女人也可以更有自信”

林志玲在模特圈尴尬的年龄,成了许多感叹年华易逝女人的救赎。她让人明白什么叫作“中年少女”,使那些本以为青春不在的女同胞们大胆追求属于自己的美丽和精彩。

6、“如果我说萧蔷美,你们一定都会觉得我很假吧,但我真的觉得她很美,每个人都有自己的特色,没必要多作比较。

2005年的“台湾第一美女”之争成了娱乐圈里倍受瞩目的大戏,两美女你来我往,高潮迭起。萧蔷每每被问到林志玲的时候总是醋劲十足。不是说“她以前就是帮我整理衣服的小模特”就是说“如果林志玲可以红十年,我真佩服她!”真实快人快语,一输到底。个人觉得,萧蔷并不如传说中的那么美,之所以顶着 “台湾第一美女”的帽子这么多年,台湾民众的心理暗示起了很大的作用

7、“这既非绯闻,更非丑闻,是自己身体的一部分,有什么不能谈”

尽管林美人拥有多伦多大学西洋美术史和经济学双学士学历,并且英语、法语、日语、粤语都非常流利。但是关于她的报道却始终围绕着她的魔鬼身材和甜美面容。特别是在坠马之后,关于她的胸部是否是真材实料就更被媒体炒到了风口浪尖。但她并不回避,胸部干瘦时,是“人生病了,咪咪也要休息”,“现在咪咪在康复中”,又是“咪咪听到大家的呼唤,终于苏醒过来”——如此答案怎么不让一众男士血脉贲张。所以说林美人真正幸运,是与生俱来的善解人意的胸襟。

8、“我追他?我号码牌都还没拿到。”

她出席内地电视节目时,当播出言承旭谈感情的的录映片段,她竟然当场落泪,令传闻更如幻似真。当主持后来再问言承旭可有追求过她,林志玲说:“那时候真的没有啊!(你有试过追求他?)我追他?我号码牌都还没拿到,太多女孩子喜欢他了。”一向自信的林志玲在谈及感情时,也显出了常人的无奈。

 9、“我一直告诉自己,要坚持那个最简单的自己,无论是过去、现在还是将来。现在大家都疼爱我的时候,我更要明白和别人尽可能地亲近,不要让人有高高在上的感觉。

能说出这样话的人,也不是有一般二般的智慧吧。

10、我引用易中天教授的话:‘古代人40多岁已是人生尾巴阶段,但现代人40多岁却正处日正当中!”

这就叫作有备而来,把问题回答的滴水不漏,林志玲早已不再话下。现在已到了旁征博引的境界了。搬一个三国专家过来,至少不让记者再纠缠于此问题。小乔是林志玲电影处女秀,这对她来说是一个极佳的机会,但同时这又是一个吃力不讨好的角色。年龄、身高、嗓音,这些似乎与我们想象中的小乔大相径庭,但这些明眼人一看就知道的问题,难道吴宇森就看不出来吗?我想吴大导演应该更追求神似吧!不管怎样,我都拭目以待。

11,04年林志玲上康熙,蔡康永和小S一直逼问她,如果她喜欢的男人很穷怎么办,林志玲就说那没关系他可以努力么,结果小S说那如果这个男人不是一时穷而是一辈子都注定穷那怎么办?

林志玲说,那也没关系,只要他的心不穷就好了

蔡康永很惊讶的说,连心不穷这种话都能说出来,很佩服林志玲,不管问她什么问题,她都会予以很正面的回答。

康永在节目最后也说,今天林志玲的访谈很为她整个人加分~

林志玲真是没什么失态的场合(丑图那些不算),有时记者问的问题作为观众都觉得太尖锐了,她还能继续保持微笑,实在由衷佩服她的情商,以前觉得她嗲,觉得她很装,现在觉得就算是装的,也有这么多人愿意买单,这着实不容易。

12,在《赤壁》的新闻发布会里,记者问她是否介意和梁朝伟的身高不相衬,林志玲巧妙的回答说:男人的气度远胜于高度。在场的梁朝伟也会心一笑。

她赞吴宇森:“赤壁里面有许多的英雄,有的代表智慧,有的代表谋略,有的代表义气,有的代表道德或才情,我觉得戏外综合了所有情怀的英雄就是吴宇森导演”。。。然后台下一片狼叫。

她赞梁朝伟:“小乔心中只有周瑜”

被问道是否会再拥抱梁朝伟,她说“要等到另外一位玲的允许,才能得到拥抱”

13,上康熙(主持金马奖之前),  

主持人问:你有没有因为自己的外型,觉得可以把男人踩在脚下?她说:“我不会啊,因为总有一天他会这么对你的。”

可以说让人有“兰心蕙质”之感。她不光只是“会讲话”,听她说如何处理自己一些事情,还真的有原则和智慧。

14,她说她妈妈教他的,奥黛丽赫本的人生哲言,一个优雅的女人是不生气的

15,有次某记者问道:志玲是不是有男生在追你呀?

志玲答道:时间在追我哟~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

是这里很多人所说的装。这个其实见仁见智,比如我觉得她不是装,就算是装也装的很好,装得让人受用,装得让人舒服。有人说过:哪里有人可以几十年如一日的装?

她的言行明明就是因为她的内涵所自然呈现,一个家境,学识,教养都优异的女人,当然会用最优雅智慧的方式展现自我。

16,《申江》 林志玲采访 她说亦舒说过虚伪怎么了 。虚伪让人舒服!

节目里,她和人握手一般人家比她矮她都是会蹲一下和人握手

林志玲的待人接物 

1, 在一个国内颁奖礼的后台花絮中,很多明星为了一睹她的芳容都到她所在的化妆室去见她。包括了韩庚,张力尹等等。到她快上台的时候,在电梯门前等待时,遇到吴孟达,吴很惊艳于她的美,称赞她,她只是谦虚的感谢。电梯门开了,她没有因为自己是女的所以应该女士优先,而是请吴和他的随从先进,自己仍站在外面等下一班,还示意吴关上电梯先上楼,当时她面带微笑,温柔的手势示意,轻轻的点头再见,充分的体现了对前辈的尊敬,同时还非常得体。

由此觉得,她的平时的待人接物绝不是装出来的,而是发自内心的优雅风度。

2, 赤壁发布会那次,各个主演要一一向大家介绍自己的角色,前面的人都是坐着说“大家好……”的,到了LZL,她起身介绍完自己的角色才坐下,接下来的演员也都起身说话,就是觉得她非常有礼貌非常得体,我觉得再怎么装时间长了总会露出马脚,可她从来都是这样,家教真的很好。

3, 林志玲个性真的相当温柔圆滑。

有次周正*侄子的情妇,上海时尚台的主持人龚露采访林志玲,对林态度很不好的样子,一直打断林,还说自己不同意林对假睫毛的用法等,也许她也是仗着自己青春无敌,又有后台,对林不待见吧

观众都明显感觉到龚露的不友善了,但林虽然一开始愣了愣,但还是态度很好的回答龚露的问题,态度不卑不亢,得体亲切。从此对林改观。终于知道为什么蔡康永,及那么多男人都喜欢林了

像林志玲这种见识大的女人,有好的教育经历,好的生活环境,是从心底里不屑这种心胸狭隘嫉妒她的人的。既然不屑,就根本不会动怒。真正优雅的淑女从不生气,

4。她来过福州的海峡都市报社里,有很多二三线明星都有来过。报社一般都会让那些明星写一些祝福语,那些不红的明星来只是龙飞凤舞的写几个字就了事,但是林志玲来的时候以尽可能小的字体又看的清楚把那一栏写的满满的,当时是她非常红的时候,而且对人很谦和。

5, 家庭环境什么的真的很重要,有次采访就说,以前志玲爸爸为志玲请假,那时候志玲已经是模特了,在工作了,她爸爸居然还很认真的写请假条,给志玲的老板,而且是用毛笔写的。

6,志玲参加浪琴的什么厂商聚会,然后志玲作为代言人要和一个个上台来的厂商握手,然后她每次握手,都是膝盖弯曲,蹲到和对方一样的高度,再握手鞠躬,最重要的是,上台来了70.80个人,她都一一这样做..

她大概就是那种让女人不喜欢,而男人会着迷的类型。但她的聪明真值得学习。毕竟让每个人都感觉如沐春风不是容易的事情。虽然我们没有必要讨好每人,但是偶尔日行一善也不错。

不要拿真心假意说事,有些人以真心的名义伤害你,有些人虽然假意但是却顾及你的心情,而且林志玲这样的人她愿意装的无害,就说明其人生哲学也不存在害人之心。她的人生哲学应该是很阳光的。尤其厌恶以真心当幌子,不顾及他人感受的交往~~

创造力和孤独感

发表于 2010年3月8日 作者 李淼

我是理科生,最关注的是如何解决我感兴趣的问题,而解决问题需要能力、天资、直觉,这些都是被古往今来很多人说滥了的话题。但是,直到科学解密了人类的大脑,解密了人类创造的机制,我们会一直将这些话题谈下去。

启发我思考创造力与孤独感之间关系问题的是台湾王道还老师的一封电子信,这封电子信是发给一个小圈子的。这封信的起因是科学松鼠会的小姬提起了最近热卖的一本书《孤独六讲》,作者是台湾的蒋勋。王道还在信中说:

“人是最能容忍狭小空间的群居哺乳类。人以外的群居哺乳类都生活在小社群里;成员互动越频繁、复杂,群体的规模往往越小。”“相形之下,人适应狭小空间的能力着实惊人。现代大都会的常住人口,数百万或千万计,若不是人类有强大的合群性,根本不可能。”

这两段话说的是我们人类的特有的群性,在电梯里,在会议场所,甚至在办公场所,我们可以和很多其他人分享不大的空间而不会感到特别不适。我想,人类文明所以能够突破其他动物的限制而得以发展,依赖合作,就像先民必须通力合作才能猎杀猛犸象这些大型动物。所以,群性看来是人类文明发展不可或缺的要素。与人类相比,王道还说:

“1950年代,卡尔洪在实验室创造了饮食、卫生条件都符合理想的‘老鼠天堂’,结果发现空间对社会行为有令人惊心动魄的影响。老鼠不断增殖的后果是:各种病态行为滋生、猖獗。例如雌鼠不照顾幼鼠;雄鼠激烈互斗,甚至吃掉幼鼠;幼鼠死亡率高达百分之九十六。也就是说,只要压缩物理空间,即使生活物质不虞匮乏,都能使社群崩溃,导致绝种。”

所以群性不仅是人类赖以发展的重要特性,也是促进社会共存的特性。

但是,群性有其负面的一面。每逢假期,总有一些同学问我假期中要做些什么。我的回答是,假如你回家,就什么也不做,因为即使带着书本和论文回家,第一你看不进去,第二即使你看进去了效率也不高,也不会有足够时间思考和做计算。这个结论我是自己做学生时得出来的。为什么在家里我们很难学习和思考?原因之一是干扰太大,亲情密集包围你;并且,大家都在做与创造毫无干系的事情:看电视、聊家常、打扑克,这些活动是最不需要动脑子的,而且做多了这些活动你的思考能力会大大降低。除了这些表面因素,还有蒋勋在《孤独六讲》中提到的一些深层次的原因。所以,这次春节我从江苏的亲戚家回到北京,就在博客中写道:

“春节几天,我似乎找到了中国人缺乏创造力的原因。我们的亲情让我们失去个性和想象力。所以,现在发展的趋势有利于中国人创造力的提升:亲情友情淡化,孤独感提高。”

那么,蒋勋在《孤独六讲》中都讲了什么?他的书分为六章,这是按照他的六个演讲分的。六章是:情欲孤独、语言孤独、革命孤独、暴力孤独、思维孤独、伦理孤独。

我对他说到的思维孤独、伦理孤独、情欲孤独和语言孤独特别有共鸣。例如,他在谈到情欲与伦理孤独时说:

“家庭、伦理的束缚之巨大,远超于我们的想象。包括我自己,尽管说得冠冕堂皇,只要在八十四岁的妈妈面前,我又变回了小孩子,哪敢谈什么自我? 谈什么情欲孤独?她照样站在门口和邻居聊我小时候尿床的糗事,讲得我无地自容,她只是若无其事地说:‘这有什么不能说的?’”

这是我们日常生活中遇到的典型的事情,家庭对你这样,有时社会对你也这样,虽然现在的社会与以前相比是进步多了。读到上面这段话时,我反省自己,发现自己不久前叫一个头发长的学生理发,我说现在不流行艺术家发型,其实我也是用群体意识压他,好在我说艺术家风格也挺好的。最后他还是理发了。社会不鼓励特立独行,要求一致性,导致创造力的衰微甚至完全消亡。

即使将范围缩小到一个研究群体,追求一致性也是扼杀创造力最主要的因素,我以前谈过几次的花车效应就是这样,一旦什么人取得突破,有时甚至不是真正的突破,大家一拥而上地写些无关痛痒的研究论文。很多情况下,一些人将一辈子耗在追逐“主流”上面。科学和艺术一样,最高形式的创造就是在追求与众不同中取得的。我想起狄拉克回忆与海森堡一起爬山时看到的事情,海森堡一个人爬到高处站在一个悬空的石头上面,面色坦然,这令狄拉克想到海森堡在创建量子力学时的风格。

其实,在科学中,创造非常类似于在文学中的创造,就是在传统的延续下寻找新的出口和新的维度。所以,蒋勋的论“语言孤独”也可以用到科学上面来。他说:“所以我们需要颠覆,使语言不僵化、不死亡。任何语言都必须被颠覆,不只是儒家群体文化的语言,即使是名学或希腊的逻辑学亦同,符号学就是在颠覆逻辑,如果名学成为中国的道统,也需要被颠覆。新一代文学颠覆旧一代文学,使它‘破’,然后才能重新整理,产生新的意义。”

最近我在读一本谈英语诗人艾略特诗歌中隐喻的一本书。艾略特的诗歌就是颠覆语言形式的典范。在著名的《荒原》中,他用典,将不同的碎片拼凑起来,追求非个人化,所有这些表面上看起来晦涩、无逻辑,但当你明白了他所用的典故,他为什么拼凑,整个诗就可以理解了,你就会获得一种全新的审美愉悦。而中国文学,似乎还未见类似的创造出现。

(《新发现》专栏,勿转)

有一个同学

http://www.douban.com/note/44034210/

1


我有一个高中同学,当年我们经常一起踢球,有次输了球,我们还在一起悲伤的哭鼻子。

大学他学建筑,每次放假回家,我们都会聚一聚,因为在我们互相看来,对方都是属于有精神世界的人。建筑学了5年,毕业他就跑去深圳了。自己搞了一个工作室做设计工作,赚的钱不算很多,但是比较自由。

曾经有一年,他特别忙,天天在楼上画图,家里做饭收拾全部都是请钟点工打理,有半年都没有下过楼。

这一年,他体重从130斤变成了220斤。形象也从正常的年轻人,变成了超级大胖子,活像用管子插进肚脐拼命吹胀了一样。

这一年,他觉得不能这样,于是开始每晚跑步,刚开始5000米,后来变成每天10000米。很快他瘦下来了,半年之内就回到了140斤,变回那个匀称的年轻人。

从此以后,他决定多运动,于是爱上了徒步旅行,在云南徒步了两个月,自由自在。

后来他又喜欢上了骑车旅行,在骑过若干短途之后,他从成都骑到了西藏。在这57天的骑行中,他找到了他的老婆,一个一同骑车去西藏的漂亮姑娘。
说实话,我一直以为骑车旅行的没有美女,但是这个姑娘确实很漂亮,而且还比他高半个头。

姑娘后来去澳洲留学,他在深圳等她。等得不耐烦了,就带上装备跑澳大利亚去骑了2个月的自行车,然后归国,把婚结了。其间我帮他出来很多把妹的主意,但在他的行动力之下,一切都黯然失色。

在此之后,他又喜欢上了铁人三项赛,参加过很多次,成绩不重要,爱好重要。当时我笑谈,再往下,你就只能裸奔了。

他们夫妻俩,对物质的要求也不算高,一直住在深圳一间狭窄的公寓里,我去看他的时候都只能在客厅打地铺。

他们夫妻俩,爱好如此一致,每逢放假,一定会背包出去旅行,越南东南亚常去。

他们是一对爱好如此一致的夫妻,对旅游都如此的热爱,给对方的支持几乎到了无穷的大的地步,普通人世俗的生活,买房买车生儿育女都仿佛对他们没有任何的压力。

他老婆去年去印度待了10个月,慢慢的旅行。今年终于回来了。该换他出门了。

很多年以前,他就说希望去欧洲长时间旅行,至少半年。时间久远,我都要忘记了。

他收拾好东西,带上帐篷出发,从红旗拉普口岸出境,直奔帕米尔高原而去,在经过3个月的长途跋涉之后,他一路西行,横穿了整个欧洲,刚刚在巴黎流连一周,直奔西班牙看高迪的建筑去了。

自由自在的生活一直都在我们身边,但我没想到会这么近。

这是他的blog,希望大家能去为他加油
http://mingse.blog.163.com

2

3

江山翘楚——历代状元之最

如果说斯巴达人尚武,那么中国很可能就“尚考”。老舍先生就写过一篇《考而不死是为神》的小品文,几十年后的现在读来依旧意犹未尽。

中考、高考、全国联考……在跟考试有关的各个词汇中,有一个词应该是人尽皆知,并且人人(主要是考生家长)期盼的

那就是——状元

所谓状元,真是同辈翘楚、明日之星,是咱这种刚过重点线的人连想都不敢想的存在。不过粗略的算一下,现在咱们国家每届状元应该出66个左右,每省文理共2人。虽然是高难度,可跟古人比较,还是宽松的让人要偷笑了。因为自科举从隋朝成形之日的1300年间,状元的名额始终固定——1人!

这可真是“天下谁人不识君”了(当然,文盲除外)

江山待有材人出,各领风骚数百年。

在这1300年间,共产生文状元596名,武状元182名。虽然是应试教育,难免有高分低能的人存在(也相应就有了高能低分的人),但基本上,能站在全国考生顶点的人,都不该是泛泛之辈,就是这些个栋梁之材,让咱又兴起了考据的瘾来。

第一任状元

孙伏伽(唐)

这位老兄其实也没什么好说的。为人还行,官做的也不小,不过真的没留下什么人生印记,我们之所以应该花点脑细胞记记,只因为他是中国历史上的第一个状元。不管怎么说,第一个吃螃蟹成功的人士嘛,还是具有一定划时代意义的。

最年轻的状元

苏魁&郭元振(唐)

这两位都是唐高宗年代的状元,当时都是18岁,同为历代最年轻的状元及第者。

要知道,科举分乡试、会试、殿试三级,三年才一次。任何一项过不了就需要3年的时间(比咱们的复读痛苦的多),而且下一级也不保证一定就过。

明代曾有位13岁参加会试的孩子,当时人人见到领着他的老爹就问“你考试怎么还带着小孩?”,反而没人觉得那孩子是来考试的。可见18岁考中状元,基本上非得一次性过关斩将,都属于名符其实的“神童”级别。

苏魁大概应该还是个不错的人,他任宰相晋封许国公时,向皇帝讲了一番勤俭节约的大道理,将我国五大名宴之一的“烧尾宴”划入了黑名单,从此不再流行。

而郭元振则与“嘉贞丝幔拥娇贤”这个故事联系到了一起。据说当时宰相想招郭小哥当女婿,就找了五色丝线分别连着他的五个女儿,让郭小哥闭着眼睛随便抓一个。郭小哥是不是事先得到过什么风声就不得而知了,总之他这六合彩的手气非常好,选中一根红线,结果就娶了宰相家贤惠而美丽的三小姐。

这个描写奇缘的典故被收列在古代幼儿识字性普及读物《龙文鞭影》里,真不知道教小孩的书干吗把别人怎么娶老婆的事拿来讲。估计是从小就鼓励孩子好好学习,将来书中自有颜如玉吧。

最年老的状元

尹枢(唐)

与前两位正好相反,这位尹老爷子过了70了才中的状元。读过《范进中举》的人大概都能了解到,屡考不中的读书人社会压力是很大的,基本上他们最后都会向现实妥协,打消科举的念头。由此可见这位古稀之年的老人心理承受力一定极其彪悍,跟着一帮或许能当自己曾孙的人考试都不觉得尴尬。

不过事实说明尹老爷的脸皮确实很厚,当时主考官杜黄裳是第一次主考,不知道该怎么排名比较服人,放榜时第一名迟迟没写,最后他问在场考生“写谁比较好”,尹枢毫无愧色地答道:“非老夫不可!”,轰动朝野。

事情的最后是真的选了他,大概相当于颁个“科举终身成就奖”吧。其它的年轻人想想这老爷子的年纪,再想想自己以后机会还有的是,大概就不会太失落了。

顺便说下,这位尹老爷子的弟弟也是位状元,可惜年代在他之后,若是在他之前,那又更有意思了。

最具有专业成就的状元

王维&柳公权(唐)

状元最佳诗画成就奖与状元最佳书法成就奖

这两位不用说了。不过由于他们只是历代状元里写诗与写字最好的人,而只是历史上写诗与写字最好的人之一,这也从另一个层面上反应了科举制的局限性。

张孝祥(南宋)

状元最佳作词成就奖。

南宋初期词坛双璧之一,咱们熟知的辛弃疾同志在诗词风格上的老前辈。

陈亮(南宋)

状元最佳思想成就奖。

为永康学派的创始人,提倡注重事业功利有补国计民生的“事功之学”。

不过值得一提的是,除了孔孟这两位没赶上科举好时代的哲学界老前辈之外,另外两位与孔孟并称“四子”的人都没考上状元。宋明理学的集大成者朱子(朱熹)和那位顶了文学家、哲学家、教育家、军事家四个头衔的圣贤级人物阳明子(王守仁)都只是一般进士而已(不过王先生的爹倒是个状元)。

张又新(唐)

状元最佳茶艺成就奖

他的《煎茶水记》是继陆羽《茶经》之后,我国又一部重要的茶道研究著作。但是……张又新同志,我严重怀疑你平时坐办公室里都在干些什么?

王溥(五代)

状元最佳史学成就奖。

撰写《五代会要》,正式建立了会要体分类编纂的体例方法,为后世所仿效。

吴其濬(清)

状元最佳植物学成就奖。

杨慎(明)

状元最佳作家成就奖

广泛涉及文、词、赋、散曲、杂剧、弹词,著述目录达400多种。

不过,我们可以看到,大凡在状元界中可以取得非政治界最佳成就的,官一般当的都不大,或者都不是官场上有影响力的人。以杨慎为例,他作为一代权臣杨廷和之子,在官场上由于公子哥作风的问题,被打了一顿板子下放到了云南,无聊的漂泊了30多年,反倒成就了崇高的历史地位。

但是这种现象也很自然,想想那些忙着搞政治斗争的人,平时为了保命就已经很忙了,哪有闲工夫来写书喝茶顺带研究植物啊。

力挽狂澜的状元

郭子仪(唐)

郭子仪的知名度恐怕还稍稍逊色与他儿子“醉打金枝”这场戏。他以武状元出身,戎马一生,屡建奇功,84岁才从战场上退休。也是历代武状元中唯一一个登上丞相之位的人

安史之乱后倾倒的大唐,因有他而获得安宁达20多年。并且他能做到“权倾天下而朝不忌,功盖一代而主不疑”,这对于向来有肃清重臣传统的中国来说,实在是件很稀有的事。

文天祥(南宋)

此兄也是官拜丞相,也是临危授命,也是国家民族的中流砥柱,而且此兄的知名度估计比郭子仪同志还要高,但是过的却实在不如郭前辈舒服。

关于他是如何如何英勇,敌方如何如何凶残,己方如何如何扯后腿这些事咱就不赘述了。不过站在国际主义的大力场上看,文同志实在有点民族主义嫌疑。元朝的确是个很烂的统治阶层,这不正好就需要你加以协助吗?需知你帮的不是蒙古人,而是在笨领导手下倒霉的老百姓啊。

不过认死理这点,倒也是中国文人十分可敬可爱的遗传,而且不分朝代与阵营。若是少了这点东西,有许多嬉笑怒骂的历史事件反而不会发生了。

地位最高的状元

李遵顼(西夏)

我一开始还不知道,原来少数民族也搞科举,可见知识的力量果然巨大。而这位李状元的社会地位也确实登峰造极,因为他除了是状元,还有另一个身份—— 齐王。这还不算完,西夏皇建二年,该同志篡位自立,成了皇帝,估计在历代皇帝里也是文凭最高的一个人了。

不过由于是皇子,李状元的社会地位跟其他人比不太公平。要说从同一个起跑线上比的话,社会地位最高的应该是唐宣宗时代的郑颢,他是唯一一个做了皇帝女婿的状元。

也许有人会奇怪,状元跟公主配好像是十分常见的官方配对,怎么会才这一个。其实在唐代,这是很正常的。那时的人普遍还有门弟观念,而遗憾的是皇室“李氏” 用现在的话说就是个政治暴发户,并不是传统意义上的名门世家。所以还有名门子弟宁愿守城门,也不要做皇家女婿的事情发生。

郑颢出身荥阳郑氏,是当时的五大望族之一,本来要娶卢氏的千金,也没做驸马的意思,结果结婚半路上硬被宰相白敏中(白居易堂弟)追了回来,威逼利诱的当了驸马。为这事郑状元把月老白宰相从头到脚恨了个遍,没事就上书弹劾他。不过作为强买强卖参与者的宣宗是很感谢白敏中的,倒是颇为义气的一直为其袒护。

最百折不挠的状元

马全(清)

此人为一名武状元,但其坚定不移的认死理和要面子的精神与文士一般无二。他初在乾隆十七考过武举的探花,后因与同僚发生矛盾, 被削夺官职。为洗刷耻辱,他更名为全,决意再夺功名,终于乾隆二十五年在武科进士殿试中得中状元。

这一百折不挠的精神,仍被我们现在一些被退学后,又为一雪前耻而考回来的学生们发扬光大。

最与时俱进的状元

张謇(清)

大家对这个名字应该不陌生吧,这是咱们的历史教课书上都提到过的人,不过那时我还不知道他是位状元,只知道他是中国近代最具开拓精神的实业家。

状元中的状元

全国考试第一的状元已经是很牛B的人了,要说这波牛B的人里面谁最牛?答案无疑是连中三元者。1300年里仅出了17人,其几率估计比被雷劈中两次还要低。

所谓的“三元”,即乡试第一名的“解元”,会试第一名的“会元”,殿试第一名的“状元”。所以不熟悉这个词的也都应该明白了吧,“连中三元”就是这人是一路第一名考过来的,家乡第一、全国第一、满朝文武和皇帝眼里的第一名。完全就是状元里面的战斗机啊!

不管这17位及第之后是闲着没事坐机关,还是真正的挑起国家的重任,仅从考试高手的角度来看,都值得我们这些后辈记住他们的名字了。

他们是

唐代的:张又新、崔元翰

宋代的:孙何、王曾、宋庠、杨置、王若叟、冯京

金朝的:孟宋献

元朝的:王崇哲

明朝的:黄观、商辂

清朝的:钱檠、陈继昌、戴衢亨

张又新。前文已经介绍过,就是那位搞茶艺的仁兄,因连中三元,外号“张三头”。累任至刑部郎中。后世暂且不说,如果他的前辈同辈们知道自己梦寐以求的“三元”获得者最大的成就居然是关于茶叶的,一定相当郁闷。

崔元翰。五十岁中举,累任至礼部员外郎,知制诰(拟草诏)。于朝中言辞温厚,举止庄重得体,有典诰之风范。不过他当官的文人气比较重,说白了就是清高孤傲,所以官途并不顺利。

孙何。幼时与其弟并称“荆门三凤”。累任至太常礼院,知制诰。在官场上属于实干派,柬言颇多且大多被采用,后因积劳成疾病逝。

王曾。少年孤苦,其人眉目如画,寡言少笑,又端厚持重,进退有礼。累任至右仆射兼门下侍郎,平章事,集贤殿大学士。因与权贵对立,数次被贬,却被地方百姓建生祠供奉。病逝,仁宗亲自撰写碑文。

宋庠。实际上其弟宋祁才是殿试第一,宋庠第三,因章献太后不想弟排兄前,点宋庠为第一,故有兄弟“双状元”之称。为官儒雅,遇事是非分明,久居相位,不过建树不大。

杨置。少有隽才,殿试中被宋仁宗所喜,亲自点为状元。可惜这位同志真的只能说福薄,还未到任,母亲病逝,他回家丁忧,也在期间病弱而死,未出仕途。

王若叟。累任至中书省中书舍人、枢密院直学士。力主抗击西夏,恪尽职守,深受哲宗赞赏。后因被弹劾结党贬迁河南,病逝。

冯京。因受他人妄言朝政牵连,贬至亳州。地方夷人叛乱,冯京上奏朝廷,代为申诉,使夷人感激涕零,愿世代做宋臣民。哲宗即位,为司马光所重,后拜太子少师。

孟宋献。其遭遇与杨置同志简直如出一辙,简而言之,这个三元是白考了

王崇哲。元代实在是中国历史上文化、艺术几乎都停滞不前的年代,所以这位仁兄几乎没有留下什么痕迹。

黄观。县考、府考、院考、乡试、会试、殿试均为第一,世称“三元天下有,六首世间无”。但后因朱棣叛乱,他为惠帝朱允文自尽,被朱棣取消了状元资格,所以在官方版本上没算连中三元。

商辂。为官平和宽厚,遇事则果断干练,与名臣于谦同朝为官。英宗复位,于谦被处刑,商辂亦贬为庶民。宪宗朝被召回,累任至内阁首辅。宪宗懦弱,商辂为百官之首,与后宫及阉党周旋,时人称“我朝贤佐,商公第一”

钱檠。继商辂之后的336年,清代第一位连中三元者。乾隆皇帝亲自作诗以示庆贺。累任至内阁学士兼礼部侍郎

陈继昌。抱病应殿试而连中三元,因此声名大振。陈继昌多外放为官,所到之处,办事公正廉明,深得民心。晚年官至江苏巡抚,病逝与故里。

戴衢亨。与其父亲、叔父及兄长合称“西江四戴”。从政谨饬清慎,颇有远见,为嘉庆时重臣,凡大典须撰拟文字,皆出自其手。历任侍读学士、军机大臣、体仁阁大学士等职。

此外,历史上也有两位武举的连中三元者。分别是明万历年间的王名世,和清顺治年间的王玉璧,两人皆是文物双修之材。

出产状元最多的地方

从地域分布上来看,这个格局跟现今的高考形式也差不多,东多西少。历代出状元最多的府为苏州府,共有状元24 人。出状元最多的省则为江苏省,共产生状元49 人。

此外,曾一度创下全国最好成绩的地方为江西的吉安府。明建文二年,此处囊括了状元、榜眼和探花前三名,明永乐二年,此地再一次创造奇迹,从状元一直到二甲第四名(既全国第七)的七个人居然都来自吉安。

最后一个状元

刘春霖(清)

他同孙伏伽同志一样,本身没有什么可说的,而且他这个状元似乎也不是纯考出来的。刘春霖最大的意义还是在于他状元及第的次年,慈禧太后即下诏停止科举,他也因此成为中国历史上的末科状元,为1300年文人们的奋斗,画下了句号。

发票

http://www.douban.com/note/53327953/

说不清,这是苏三第几次到中国人民币大学的财务处报账了。当然这一次,他已经习惯了这种生活。像从前一样,他轻车熟路的先去一些个体小书店买发票,然后按照7%的税点把钱返给小书店老板,两人目光相接,像多年前地下党交接文件一样,默契于心,更默契于发票。

如果不是生在中国,苏三这一生也不会认识“发票”这种奇怪的有中国特色社会主义的东西。说发票是钱,又不能交易;说不是钱,却又比钱还重要,重要性甚至超过支票。苏三一直想在著名的“千度千科”给发票建一个词条,内容都想好了,很简单,只有一句话:“发票,有中国特色社会主义的荒诞派道具。”只是苏三是安逸的顺民,一直没有建立这个词条。只是,苏三还是忍不住想起多年前,他与发票之间那难忘的第一次,堪比破处的第一次。

那年,苏三还是一个翩翩少年,作为中国人民币大学的本科生,他对生活对未来对自己充满着希望。大学是伊甸园,不是印钞机;是象牙塔,不是埋骨地。那年苏三只有二十一岁,那年苏三上大三,那年苏三喜欢许巍。

那年,苏三和他相熟的一位老师申请到了一个学术项目,省级的,算来算去,一共有万把块钱。这是中国学术界有中国特色社会主义的表现:理工科一般都是十万以上;文科一般都是一万多。因为文科实在是没啥用处,而且搞文科的人一向嘴巴比较碎,闲着没事儿就骂娘,给点钱打发塞丫的嘴就够了。不管怎样,在中国特色社会主义的学术界,有个万把块钱的项目来给本科生做,已经不错了。苏三知道感恩,于是他问老师,开始做了,经费在哪儿呢?

老师说:在中国特色社会主义下,为了防止经费挪用,当然在课题结项的时候才能拿到,一开始哪有经费?

苏三不解:没有经费,我们买书、打印、复印都要花钱,谁出钱啊?

老师说:你先垫着吧,到时候留着发票。

苏三想想,还是想不通,既然已经申请到了课题,为什么不能先把钱取出来以供项目所需,非要先做出项目来留着发票最后去报销?经费的用处为什么不用在项目中而要做完了项目才给?但一想到这是中国特色社会主义,苏三不禁释怀了,啊,这就是传说中的优越性吧!

于是苏三开始努力做项目了,他辛辛苦苦,爬梳资料,还坐火车到其他地区的图书馆和大学去查资料。写项目论文更是一个字一个字写过去的。作为中国特色社会主义大学教育出来的优秀文科生,苏三知道什么叫做感恩。

只是发票,苏三一直很纳闷。他去买书的时候,书店的老板总是不给他开发票,说:小伙子,你买的书太少了,不能给你开。

苏三问:为什么?

老板说:税务局一个月就给我一本发票簿,你就这么百十块钱,开不了几张我这就用光了啊。

苏三听不太明白,就问:那我要开怎么办?

老板说:你年底来吧,带着你这一年买书的所有的小票。

苏三悻悻的走了,一晃一年过去了,项目论文也完成了,负责的老师很满意,苏三也觉的开心。到了年底,老师告诉苏三,可以去报销经费了,这是中国特色社会主义的优越性,就由苏三去报账吧!

苏三很高兴,先去书店把一年买书的钱开了一张发票,算起来有三千多块钱。加上一千多块钱的复印费和打印费和近一千的交通费,一共还不到五千。苏三问老师,这钱,不够一万啊?

老师说:剩下的六千,就是你辛辛苦苦写论文,出成果的劳务费啊!真是个傻孩子!

苏三更高兴了,排了一天的队,带着发票去财务处报账。财务处的会计们都还蛮热情,一看苏三的发票,就说:同学,你这些发票都不合格啊! 苏三说:我这都是正经开的发票,怎么不合格?

会计热情的说:中国特色社会主义的项目规定,购书发票超过一千的,要附上买书的书目,而且单张发票不能超过一千五;项目规定,劳务费不能超过10%,你最多报一千,你怎么填了六千?项目规定,复印费和打印费不能超过200,你这一千块的发票最多只能报销200;项目规定,交通费不能超过500,你这最多也只能报500。 苏三听不太懂,觉得发票就是发票,怎么还有这么多规定?只好回去找老师。老师也没办法,说:哟,这么复杂?那你就按照要求重新开发票吧! 苏三想了想,书票好办,就去书店找老板给打印了这一年购书的书单。加上200的复印费,500的交通费,一千的劳务费,加起来一共还不到五千。还剩下五千多的钱不知道该怎么报。 苏三只好又去找老师,老师说:那你就再去开五千的书票吧!总不能让经费报不出来吧。

苏三只好又去找小书店的老板,能否给他开五张一千块钱的发票。老板不干了,说:给你开发票,我就得给税务局上税,哪能随便给你开啊! 苏三一听,那怎么办?就问:那您给税务局上多少的税啊?

老板说:5%。

苏三说:那我就把税点返还给您,您看怎样?

老板翻着白眼,看了苏三一眼说:那不行,这是中国特色社会主义的税点,你得给我7%。

苏三一听,怒了,说:你这也太欺负人了,白赚钱啊!我不买你的了,我去别的书店开!

老板笑呵呵的说,那您请便吧。
   

苏三又找到另一个书店,说明来意,那家老板很严肃的说:这是中国特色社会主义,我们没有这种服务。

苏三赶忙求着说:您就行行好吧,我把税点返给您。

这老板继续严肃的说:那得返给我7%的税点,这是统一价。

苏三傻眼了,原来买发票也形成了市场!没办法,只好说:那您给开吧,开五张,每张一千,7%就7%!

这老板仍然严肃的说:税务局每个月只给我一个发票簿,一共就几十张,我一次开不了五张,只能给你开两张。

苏三问:两张就两张吧!但是,为什么税务局一个月只给您一个发票簿啊?还不够您三天卖的书的啊!税务局傻逼啊!

老板严肃的说:中国特色社会主义的税务局才不傻逼,这样我们每个月卖多少书他们都能征税。而且能防止你们这种买发票的。

苏三无语,开了两张发票走了。又到了第三家书店,这家还不错,开了三张给他。

拿着新整理好的发票,苏三又排了一天的队,来到了财务处。财务处的会计仍然很热情,报了七千块钱,又对苏三说:同学啊,您这发票有三张都是连号的啊!按中国特色社会主义规定,连号的发票不能报!连号说明您这发票都是同时开的,可能有猫腻!

苏三又晕了,只好拿回来那三张连号的发票,不知道怎么办才好。

还是会计热情,说:同学啊, 您这个项目今天下午就过期了,得赶紧想办法报啊!

苏三赶忙去找老师,老师说:已经报出七千了啊,不错,还剩下三千,也来不及找书店了,我看你就去学校东门的天桥下面买几张假发票吧! 苏三赶忙又跑到东门,只听旁边好多抱着孩子的妇女在喃喃的说:发票发票发票发票发票发票发票发票发票发票发票……

苏三一听,戴上墨镜,凑过去,假装老练的说:要三张发票,怎么卖的?

妇女警惕的说:三张太少,这是中国特色社会主义的假发票,只能算你五十块钱一张。

苏三也凭借多年在中国特色社会主义下的经验,老练的说:太贵了,十块钱一张。

妇女说:你狠,十五,成交。

于是苏三又买了三张看上去和真发票完全相同的家发票,在离财务处下班还有一个小时的时候冲进了财务处。又排了四十多分钟号,终于轮到了,苏三忐忑的把发票交给财务处会计。

会计仍然热情的说:小伙子!您这发票是假的啊!我们不能给你报。

苏三一惊,装作很愤怒的说:怎么会,我这是真的!

会计笑着说:别蒙我了,我们这些会计,每天要看多少发票啊,早就练就了一双识别真假发票的火眼金睛!再逼真的假发票也逃不过我们的慧眼!

苏三不禁连连叹服,一面把假发票拿回来,就当这三千块钱丢了;一面暗地里佩服中国特色社会主义的会计真是敬业。回去后,苏三给老师汇报了这些,老师颔首笑而不语。

苏三问:为什么不直接把经费给我们,反正我们最后也要上交研究成果,他们批准经费,难道不是为了成果?为什么冒出来个发票?

老师说:有发票是为了防止滥用经费。

苏三说:既然如此,为什么还要对发票有那么多规定?这个不能超过一千,那个不能超过两百,而且不能连号?

老师说:这是对发票的使用进行规范化管理。

苏三继续问:既然如此,那谁能保证这些发票恰好等于经费的金额呢?有的人不够,有的人还用不了?不够的只好去买发票了。

老师说:买发票也正常,毕竟你也为税务局贡献了税点。

苏三又问:可税务局又防止别人购买,每个月只给书店一本发票簿。导致买真的买不到多少,只能去买假发票。所以学校东门总是聚集着那么多卖假发票的妇女!而且假发票越来越逼真!

老师说:对啊,所以这就需要会计来把这些假发票挑出来,免得损害国家利益。

苏三恍然大悟,说:我懂了!因为假发票越来越多,所以会计的慧眼也越来越尖,所以中国有着世界上最优秀的会计,能识别世界上最逼真的假发票。这果然是中国特色社会主义的优越性的体现。

老师继续颔首笑而不语。

苏三的领悟是深刻的。后来他交换到国外的大学学习一年,也申请到了一个项目。不过,他们只是把苏三申请到的经费打到了苏三的账户上,只要苏三在结项的时候把成果保质保量上交就可以了。如果质量不合格,经费就会收回;如果质量合格,经费怎么支配是苏三说了算。

苏三想,果然是蛮夷之国,一点都没有优越性。还是中国比较好,成果就是做得再烂,只要有发票,也能拿到钱;成果做得再好,如果没有发票,也拿不到钱。而且,中国还同时培养出了大批独具慧眼的会计,打造了一个买卖真发票的市场,盘活了一个制贩假发票的市场,这当然是国外赶不上的。

苏三窃喜,原来用学术赚钱这么简单!从那之后,他继续读硕士读博士,当讲师当副教授当教授,评硕导评博导,他都发扬了中国特色社会主义的在发票上的优越性,因为学术的起点是发票,终点也是发票,过程无论怎样艰苦或清闲,也不过是发票。

哲学家的儿子踢足球

http://www.douban.com/note/60386251/

昨天吃饭的时候,我舅舅突然问我,你老看足球,知道国安主教练洪元硕他爸是谁吗?

我说不知道。洪谦。我舅告诉我。听说过吗?我还是很不好意思的说不知道。

梁启超知道吧?洪谦是梁启超的学生。罗素知道吧?洪谦写书,罗素还给他做过序呢,他们都是铁哥们儿。

我做恍然大悟状。

唉,现在这些踢球的,别的都不会。我舅舅慨叹。你知道洪元硕的启蒙老师是谁吗?陆老师,也是北大的,以前是武汉队的主力,后来带着洪元硕这帮人横扫北京,当时北大足球队可厉害了,什么北体根本不是对手,可人家不光会踢球啊,后来来北大教化学,我论文的指导老师就是他,瞧人家。

我再做恍然大悟状。

我舅舅继续:巴西队的苏格拉底也不光会踢球啊,人家不踢球的时候还能当医生呢,人家当了好多年医生,一高兴就去踢了个世界杯。

他儿子插话:呦,爸,哲学家还会踢球呐?

不是一码事儿,希腊那个不会踢球。我舅舅说,可洪谦经常慨叹,我儿子怎么就踢球了?

What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710—.htm

Noam Chomsky

Z Magazine, October, 1997

Part of the reason why I write about the media is because I am interested in the whole intellectual culture, and the part of it that is easiest to study is the media. It comes out every day. You can do a systematic investigation. You can compare yesterday’s version to today’s version. There is a lot of evidence about what’s played up and what isn’t and the way things are structured.

My impression is the media aren’t very different from scholarship or from, say, journals of intellectual opinion—there are some extra constraints—but it’s not radically different. They interact, which is why people go up and back quite easily among them.

You look at the media, or at any institution you want to understand. You ask questions about its internal institutional structure. You want to know something about their setting in the broader society. How do they relate to other systems of power and authority? If you’re lucky, there is an internal record from leading people in the information system which tells you what they are up to (it is sort of a doctrinal system). That doesn’t mean the public relations handouts but what they say to each other about what they are up to. There is quite a lot of interesting documentation.

Those are three major sources of information about the nature of the media. You want to study them the way, say, a scientist would study some complex molecule or something. You take a look at the structure and then make some hypothesis based on the structure as to what the media product is likely to look like. Then you investigate the media product and see how well it conforms to the hypotheses. Virtually all work in media analysis is this last part—trying to study carefully just what the media product is and whether it conforms to obvious assumptions about the nature and structure of the media.

Well, what do you find? First of all, you find that there are different media which do different things, like the entertainment/Hollywood, soap operas, and so on, or even most of the newspapers in the country (the overwhelming majority of them). They are directing the mass audience.

There is another sector of the media, the elite media, sometimes called the agenda-setting media because they are the ones with the big resources, they set the framework in which everyone else operates. The New York Times and CBS, that kind of thing. Their audience is mostly privileged people. The people who read the New York Times—people who are wealthy or part of what is sometimes called the political class—they are actually involved in the political system in an ongoing fashion. They are basically managers of one sort or another. They can be political managers, business managers (like corporate executives or that sort of thing), doctoral managers (like university professors), or other journalists who are involved in organizing the way people think and look at things.

The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says "Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page." The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow. If you are an editor in Dayton, Ohio, you would sort of have to do that, because you don’t have much else in the way of resources. If you get off line, if you’re producing stories that the big press doesn’t like, you’ll hear about it pretty soon. In fact, what just happened at San Jose Mercury News is a dramatic example of this. So there are a lot of ways in which power plays can drive you right back into line if you move out. If you try to break the mold, you’re not going to last long. That framework works pretty well, and it is understandable that it is just a reflection of obvious power structures.

The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious. Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. "We" take care of that.

What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on. They are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy which is a very tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system.

What about their institutional setting? Well, that’s more or less the same. What they interact with and relate to is other major power centers—the government, other corporations, or the universities. Because the media are a doctrinal system they interact closely with the universities. Say you are a reporter writing a story on Southeast Asia or Africa, or something like that. You’re supposed to go over to the big university and find an expert who will tell you what to write, or else go to one of the foundations, like Brookings Institute or American Enterprise Institute and they will give you the words to say. These outside institutions are very similar to the media.

The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it’s generally true of corporations. It’s true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It’s dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on.

If you’ve read George Orwell’s Animal Farm which he wrote in the mid-1940s, it was a satire on the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state. It was a big hit. Everybody loved it. Turns out he wrote an introduction to Animal Farm which was suppressed. It only appeared 30 years later. Someone had found it in his papers. The introduction to Animal Farm was about "Literary Censorship in England" and what it says is that obviously this book is ridiculing the Soviet Union and its totalitarian structure. But he said England is not all that different. We don’t have the KGB on our neck, but the end result comes out pretty much the same. People who have independent ideas or who think the wrong kind of thoughts are cut out.

He talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out. Those two sentences more or less tell the story.

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.

Okay, you look at the structure of that whole system. What do you expect the news to be like? Well, it’s pretty obvious. Take the New York Times. It’s a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations. In the case of the elite media, it’s big businesses.

Well, what do you expect to happen? What would you predict about the nature of the media product, given that set of circumstances? What would be the null hypothesis, the kind of conjecture that you’d make assuming nothing further. The obvious assumption is that the product of the media, what appears, what doesn’t appear, the way it is slanted, will reflect the interest of the buyers and sellers, the institutions, and the power systems that are around them. If that wouldn’t happen, it would be kind of a miracle.

Okay, then comes the hard work. You ask, does it work the way you predict? Well, you can judge for yourselves. There’s lots of material on this obvious hypothesis, which has been subjected to the hardest tests anybody can think of, and still stands up remarkably well. You virtually never find anything in the social sciences that so strongly supports any conclusion, which is not a big surprise, because it would be miraculous if it didn’t hold up given the way the forces are operating.

The next thing you discover is that this whole topic is completely taboo. If you go to the Kennedy School of Government or Stanford, or somewhere, and you study journalism and communications or academic political science, and so on, these questions are not likely to appear. That is, the hypothesis that anyone would come across without even knowing anything that is not allowed to be expressed, and the evidence bearing on it cannot be discussed. Well, you predict that too. If you look at the institutional structure, you would say, yeah, sure, that’s got to happen because why should these guys want to be exposed? Why should they allow critical analysis of what they are up to take place? The answer is, there is no reason why they should allow that and, in fact, they don’t. Again, it is not purposeful censorship. It is just that you don’t make it to those positions. That includes the left (what is called the left), as well as the right. Unless you have been adequately socialized and trained so that there are some thoughts you just don’t have, because if you did have them, you wouldn’t be there. So you have a second order of prediction which is that the first order of prediction is not allowed into the discussion.

The last thing to look at is the doctrinal framework in which this proceeds. Do people at high levels in the information system, including the media and advertising and academic political science and so on, do these people have a picture of what ought to happen when they are writing for each other (not when they are making graduation speeches)? When you make a commencement speech, it is pretty words and stuff. But when they are writing for one another, what do people say about it?

There are basically three currents to look at. One is the public relations industry, you know, the main business propaganda industry. So what are the leaders of the PR industry saying? Second place to look is at what are called public intellectuals, big thinkers, people who write the "op eds" and that sort of thing. What do they say? The people who write impressive books about the nature of democracy and that sort of business. The third thing you look at is the academic stream, particularly that part of political science which is concerned with communications and information and that stuff which has been a branch of political science for the last 70 or 80 years.

So, look at those three things and see what they say, and look at the leading figures who have written about this. They all say (I’m partly quoting), the general population is "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders." We have to keep them out of the public arena because they are too stupid and if they get involved they will just make trouble. Their job is to be "spectators," not "participants."

They are allowed to vote every once in a while, pick out one of us smart guys. But then they are supposed to go home and do something else like watch football or whatever it may be. But the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" have to be observers not participants. The participants are what are called the "responsible men" and, of course, the writer is always one of them. You never ask the question, why am I a "responsible man" and somebody else is in jail? The answer is pretty obvious. It’s because you are obedient and subordinate to power and that other person may be independent, and so on. But you don’t ask, of course. So there are the smart guys who are supposed to run the show and the rest of them are supposed to be out, and we should not succumb to (I’m quoting from an academic article) "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interest." They are not. They are terrible judges of their own interests so we have do it for them for their own benefit.

Actually, it is very similar to Leninism. We do things for you and we are doing it in the interest of everyone, and so on. I suspect that’s part of the reason why it’s been so easy historically for people to shift up and back from being, sort of enthusiastic Stalinists to being big supporters of U.S. power. People switch very quickly from one position to the other, and my suspicion is that it’s because basically it is the same position. You’re not making much of a switch. You’re just making a different estimate of where power lies. One point you think it’s here, another point you think it’s there. You take the same position.

@PAR SUB = How did all this evolve? It has an interesting history. A lot of it comes out of the first World War, which is a big turning point. It changed the position of the United States in the world considerably. In the 18th century the U.S. was already the richest place in the world. The quality of life, health, and longevity was not achieved by the upper classes in Britain until the early 20th century, let alone anybody else in the world. The U.S. was extraordinarily wealthy, with huge advantages, and, by the end of the 19th century, it had by far the biggest economy in the world. But it was not a big player on the world scene. U.S. power extended to the Caribbean Islands, parts of the Pacific, but not much farther.

During the first World War, the relations changed. And they changed more dramatically during the second World War. After the second World War the U.S. more or less took over the world. But after first World War there was already a change and the U.S. shifted from being a debtor to a creditor nation. It wasn’t huge, like Britain, but it became a substantial actor in the world for the first time. That was one change, but there were other changes.

The first World War was the first time there was highly organized state propaganda. The British had a Ministry of Information, and they really needed it because they had to get the U.S. into the war or else they were in bad trouble. The Ministry of Information was mainly geared to sending propaganda, including huge fabrications about "Hun" atrocities, and so on. They were targeting American intellectuals on the reasonable assumption that these are the people who are most gullible and most likely to believe propaganda. They are also the ones that disseminate it through their own system. So it was mostly geared to American intellectuals and it worked very well. The British Ministry of Information documents (a lot have been released) show their goal was, as they put it, to control the thought of the entire world, a minor goal, but mainly the U.S. They didn’t care much what people thought in India. This Ministry of Information was extremely successful in deluding hot shot American intellectuals into accepting British propaganda fabrications. They were very proud of that. Properly so, it saved their lives. They would have lost the first World War otherwise.

In the U.S., there was a counterpart. Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform. The U.S. was a very pacifist country. It has always been. People don’t want to go fight foreign wars. The country was very much opposed to the first World War and Wilson was, in fact, elected on an anti-war position. "Peace without victory" was the slogan. But he was intending to go to war. So the question was, how do you get the pacifist population to become raving anti-German lunatics so they want to go kill all the Germans? That requires propaganda. So they set up the first and really only major state propaganda agency in U.S. history. The Committee on Public Information it was called (nice Orwellian title), called also the Creel Commission. The guy who ran it was named Creel. The task of this commission was to propagandize the population into a jingoist hysteria. It worked incredibly well. Within a few months there was a raving war hysteria and the U.S. was able to go to war.

A lot of people were impressed by these achievements. One person impressed, and this had some implications for the future, was Hitler. If you read Mein Kampf, he concludes, with some justification, that Germany lost the first World War because it lost the propaganda battle. They could not begin to compete with British and American propaganda which absolutely overwhelmed them. He pledges that next time around they’ll have their own propaganda system, which they did during the second World War. More important for us, the American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It’s going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller’s image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.

His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn’t smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

Another member of the Creel Commission was Walter Lippmann, the most respected figure in American journalism for about half a century (I mean serious American journalism, serious think pieces). He also wrote what are called progressive essays on democracy, regarded as progressive back in the 1920s. He was, again, applying the lessons of the work on propaganda very explicitly. He says there is a new art in democracy called manufacture of consent. That is his phrase. Edward Herman and I borrowed it for our book, but it comes from Lippmann. So, he says, there is this new art in the method of democracy, "manufacture of consent." By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. We can make it irrelevant because we can manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them, even if they have a formal way to participate. So we’ll have a real democracy. It will work properly. That’s applying the lessons of the propaganda agency.

Academic social science and political science comes out of the same thing. The founder of what’s called communications and academic political science is Harold Glasswell. His main achievement was a book, a study of propaganda. He says, very frankly, the things I was quoting before—those things about not succumbing to democratic dogmatism, that comes from academic political science (Lasswell and others). Again, drawing the lessons from the war time experience, political parties drew the same lessons, especially the conservative party in England. Their early documents, just being released, show they also recognized the achievements of the British Ministry of Information. They recognized that the country was getting more democratized and it wouldn’t be a private men’s club. So the conclusion was, as they put it, politics has to become political warfare, applying the mechanisms of propaganda that worked so brilliantly during the first World War towards controlling people’s thoughts.

That’s the doctrinal side and it coincides with the institutional structure. It strengthens the predictions about the way the thing should work. And the predictions are well confirmed. But these conclusions, also, are not allowed to be discussed. This is all now part of mainstream literature but it is only for people on the inside. When you go to college, you don’t read the classics about how to control peoples minds.

Just like you don’t read what James Madison said during the constitutional convention about how the main goal of the new system has to be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and has to be designed so that it achieves that end. This is the founding of the constitutional system, so nobody studies it. You can’t even find it in the academic scholarship unless you really look hard.

That is roughly the picture, as I see it, of the way the system is institutionally, the doctrines that lie behind it, the way it comes out. There is another part  directed to the "ignorant meddlesome" outsiders. That is mainly using diversion of one kind or another. From that, I think, you can predict what you would expect to find.

自己盖“别野”-“稻语间”落成——(1)

汽水去年在老家买了小块土地,设计了一套自宅, 让很多朋友心动不已;今年刚打算盖的时候却因为村里要建水库,结果无法实现.但是一个朋友却有一块好的土地,让汽水操刀设计,这是一个设计以及建造的过程,因为朋友不想让别人知道她的名字,所以姑且用村姑代替. 帖子是06年2月开始写的.

俺在博客里写过一个村姑要设计他们家的别野,几个月过去了,反复了几稿,几个晚上没有睡着,方案终于在2006年2月14日情人节那个晚上定稿出炉了.

村姑打算把现有的房子拆掉重盖,让汽水心动的是村姑家有很大一块土地,有独立的院子,让汽水可以自由发挥,而且村姑和她老公有比较高的鉴赏能力,有较高的生活追求,经济上也不成问题。比我自己的房子条件要好很多。

所以,汽水当即就接下这个任务。

汽水美好的想象着不能在自己住宅里实现的那些东西在她家实现:

1;要有院子,而且起码要有3个院子,前院,后院和内院。2;入口要有玄关,要有天井。3;要种竹子。4;要中式,要含蓄,要内敛。5;要每个房间都要南北窗户。6;要有养鱼池。7;大卫生间要有大浴缸和独立淋浴房,8;要…………

但是,后来发现事实不是那么简单的…………

1

后来发现有很多难点:首先,村姑家里有猪26头,鸡9只,有猪舍,鸡笼,这些是村姑坚持必须保留的;其次,地形非常不规整,凹进突出,很难设计;再次,虽然土地大,但是,后面村里只给她们家使用权,不让盖房子,前面因为要和周围邻居保持一制,不能向前突出;而左右又有其他房子。设计局限非常大。 当然,难度越大,越能激发汽水的创作热情嘛。

另外基本情况是:村姑家有父母2个,村姑还有一个妹妹,都在城里打工,平时周末要回去和父母一起住,所以他们各要一个房间,再加一个客房,那就是4个房间。

这是现状:

2

这是后门:

3

这是猪舍:

4

这是鸡舍:

5

猪26头:

6

这是设计好的一层平面图。

看入口,做了个玄关,玄关后面是一个天井,这之间的墙上安一个石窗,左侧是鞋柜,右侧向前是客厅。之所以入口向内退是因为不用淋雨和吹到风。 再看客厅,这是一个270度景观又非常方正的超级客厅,它比餐厅要低,所以实际客厅的层高就要比餐厅高出60CM,客厅的北侧是可以全开的玻璃门,开向另外一个天井,用防腐处理的木板地面和实墙围起来的一个天井,可以坐在那里看书发呆。

客厅的东面是一条道路,我把它叫做曲径通幽。2堵实墙之间的空间,很中国,很传统。 往北走上4个台阶,左转是上二楼的楼梯,右转是餐厅,对面是一个洗手盆,一楼的厕所我故意设计得很小,此所谓,疏可走马,密不通风,但是干湿还是分开的。 厕所的门不能开向餐厅,这是基本原则。

餐厅的南面地面上有一条长长的矮窗,保证光线可以进来,视线却看不到客厅。餐厅的东面是全开的落地玻璃门,对着内院中的一个养鱼池,钓来的鱼可以养在这里。野生的呐。 餐厅也是方正的,保证可以放一个圆桌,中国人吃饭喜欢做圆桌。这也是俺的切身体会。 厨房和餐厅是连在一起的,也比较大,可以2个人在里面吃早餐。 再后面是车库,储藏间,这些土地不是盖楼的范围,属于临时建筑,注意有一个大灶,是用来烧喂猪的食物的。当然大灶烧的饭是最香的了。另外还有保留的猪舍和鸡笼。

1

这是二层平面图。二层有4个房间,这是因为人口比较多的关系,南面2个房间,北面2个房间,除了书房外,都是南北开窗的,通风采光效果一流。房间都不大。卧室不能太大,这也是风水的要求,为的是聚气,长期住太大卧室的人体质容易下降。南北2个房间在天井处一个开高窗,一个开低窗,视线并不穿透,但是却有特别的光影效果和良好的通风效果。这也是因为地形局限,我不得以想出来的妙招。南北各有一个阳台,南边是大阳台,北边是小阳台。

2

三层是村姑自己住的地方,相当地豪华。但是又不为人知,我称之为“低调奢华”,这主要体现在这个大卫生间上面,村姑对卫生间的要求比我还要高,看看吧,超级双人大浴缸,独立淋浴房。双台盆还带一个小阳台,还要在浴室装一个液晶电视。如今农村生活条件好啊。 没有衣帽间?这是因为村姑大部分时间在城里打工,所以并没有太多的衣服,一个大的衣柜就足够了。南面出门就是一个带葡萄架的的露台,呵呵晒太阳,磕瓜子,这个爱好倒是和我差不多。

主卧室也有一个很特别的设计,就是床头有一排细长窗,早上睁开眼睛趴在床上就可以看到外面的景色,这是我从一个韩国电影《触不到的恋人》里看来的。不过人家韩国人看的是大海,咱们村姑看的是庄稼和牲口。

估计全宁波找不到一间这样的卧室了。

1