Rewrite

2月28日的New Yorker第56頁刊登了Paul Simon的詩,幾乎和我現在的狀態一模一樣,大妙!對於不知道Paul Simon的同學,此人是美國最牛的作詞家之一了,The Sound of Silence就是他寫的。

Rewrite

By Paul Simon via New Yorker

I’ve been working on my rewrite, that’s right
I’m gonna change the ending
Gonna throw away my title
And toss it in the trash
Every minute after midnight
All the time I’m spending
It’s just for working on my rewrite
Gonna turn it into cash

I’ve been working at the carwash
I consider it my day job
‘Cause it’s really not a pay job
But that’s where I am
Everybody says the old guy working at the carwash
Hasn’t got a brain cell left since Vietnam

But I say help me, help me, help me, help me
Thank you!
I’d no idea
That you were there
When I said help me, help me, help me, help me
Whoa! Thank you, for listening to my prayer

I’m working on my rewrite, that’s right
I’m gonna change the ending
Gonna throw away my title
And toss it in the trash
Every minute after midnight
All the time I’m spending
Is just for working on my rewrite, that’s right
I’m gonna turn it into cash

I’ll eliminate the pages
Where the father has a breakdown
And he has to leave the family
But he really meant no harm
I’m gonna substitute a car chase
And a race across the rooftops
When the father saves the children
And he hold them in his arms

And I say help me, help me, help me, help me
Thank you!
I’d no idea
That you were there
When I said help me, help me, help me, help me
Whoa! Thank you, for listening to my prayer

Advertisements

[不能不轉載] 周保松:獨一無二的松子 — 寫給畢業班同學

廷龍按:Ricci的母校──中大(香港中文大學),是我心目中一所不同於世界上其它任何學校的別具一格的學府。關於這所錢穆、唐君毅等華人學術巨星創辦的學校的氣質的闡述,遠有劉美美作於1971年的《哭新亞》,近有鄧小樺的《中大異議者.無家的鬼魂》

中大是一座山。這原本幽靜的讀書聖地,正面臨前所未有的異化──或曰赤化──浪潮。甘做中共家奴的劉遵義在位短短6年,幾乎斷送中大的精神傳統。當年中大先賢們苦心經營多年,僅僅維持新亞、崇基、聯合、逸夫四大書院,而劉遵義可以在上台之後,開啟「大躍進」,大搞書院批發,一口氣成立晨興、善衡、敬文、伍宜孫及和聲5所書院!嗚呼中大!我為中大歎息之余,亦相信劉遵義將成為中大的千古罪人。

所以看到下面這篇溫情的畢業獻辭,我還是開心了一陣。我願中大徹洗劉遵義遺毒,光復中大人多年建立的獨立思想的傳統。當此中國牛氣沖天乃至大有席卷一切的架勢之際,有那麼一所以反主流反建制永遠抗爭為己任的學府不是很美妙嗎?諸位繼續把中大「內地化」的主事者們,請三思。


獨一無二的松子 — 寫給畢業班同學

周保松
香港中文大學政治與行政學系助理教授

各位同學:

你們終於披上畢業袍,在春霧瀰漫、杜鵑滿山的三月,向大學生活道別。有同學對我說,老師,為我們寫點什麼吧,留個紀念。我明白你們的心意。三年來,我們在山中一起思考政治、哲學與人生,日夕相處,此刻目送你們學成下山,步入社會,多少有點此地一為別的不忍。

讓我從中大的樹說起吧。你們都知道,中大多馬尾松。馬尾松並不起眼,長在山坡上,終年常綠,開花也好,結果也好,沒人會留意。有時在校園散步,見到掉下來的松子,我會拾起幾顆,帶回家中。後來,我讀到台灣作家周志文一篇回憶少年同學的文章,說這些一生默默無聞的人,猶如「空山松子落,不只是一顆,而是數也數不清的松子從樹上落下,有的落在石頭上,有的落在草葉上,有的落在溪澗中,但從來沒人會看到,也沒人會聽到,因為那是一座空山」。想深一層,即便不是空山,即使人來人往如中大,我們也不會關心那一顆又一顆松子的命運。在我們眼中,所有松子其實沒有差別。一批掉了,零落成泥,另一批自然生出來,周而復始。世界不會因為多了或少了一顆松子而有什麼不同。

「我」外觀「我」

松子的命運,大抵也是人生的實相。如果我注定是萬千松子的一顆,注定平凡走過一生,然後不留痕舻地離開,我的生命有何價值?如果我只是歷史長河的一粒微塵,如果所有一切必歸於虛無,今天的努力和掙扎,於我有何意義?

我常會想起這類問題。而每次想起,心情總是混雜。有時惶恐,有時悲涼,有時豁達,有時虛無。更多的時候,是不讓自己想下去,因為這個問題恍如將人置於精神的懸崖,稍一不慎便會掉下去。

我於是退一步問,為什麼這個問題總是揮之不去,總是如此影響心情。漸漸,我明白,我其實不可以不想,因為我是人,有自我意識和價值意識。我如此清楚見到自己在活著,見到當下眨眼成過去,見到自己作為一個獨立個體在默默走覑自己的路,無人可以替代。更重要的,是我無時無刻不為自己的生命作價值衡量。我們心中好像有把秤,要求自己每天要活得好。我們認真規劃人生,珍惜他人的情誼,謹慎作出每個決定,因為我們知道,生命只有一次,而生命是有好與壞幸福不幸福可言的。我們不願意活得一無是處,意義問題遂無從逃避。

難題於是出現。從個體主觀的觀點看,我自己的生命就是一切,重如泰山。我的生命完結,世界也就完結了。我是宇宙的中心。但只要我離自己遠一點,從高處望下來,我又必須承認,我只是一顆松子。從客觀的觀點看,我的生命完結了,世界仍然好好存在,一點也沒變。我的生命如微塵滴水,毫無分量,很快被人遺忘,後面有更多後來者。每次去完殯儀館,見到摯親好友片刻化成灰燼,然後返回鬧市,面對笑語盈盈的人群,逝者身影揮之不去,我總有難言的傷慟。那一刻,我看到生的重,也看到生的輕。既然我們的人生路線圖早已畫好,中間的曲曲折折,真的有分別嗎?

我想我們總是相信,這中間的曲曲折折,是有分別的。對,我知道自己只是億萬松子的其中一顆,也知道終有一天會墜落。但我不可能接受,我的人生和他人毫無分別,也不可能接受我的人生毫無價值。但這種不能接受,是源於自欺嗎?是在編織一張意義之網來安慰自己嗎?我不認為是這樣。所有意義問題之所以成為問題,之所以困擾我們,說到底,是因為「我」意識到「我」的存在,意識到「我」真實具體地活覑自己的生命,並有自己的人生計劃。如果我沒有了一己的主觀觀點,只懂從一抽離普遍的角度觀照自身,我其實沒法理解「我」為何要如此在乎自己的生命。我們必須先意識到「我」的存在,並在浩瀚宇宙中為「我」找到一個立足點,意義問題才會浮現。所以,對於深山那一顆松子,它不必因為看到身邊還有無數更大更美的松子而顧影自憐,也不必因為長在深谷無人見而覺一生枉度。它真實經歷了屬於自己的春夏秋冬,見證一己容顏的變遷,並用自己的眼睛和心靈,體味生命的一切。這份體味,是別人奪不走也取代不了的。

「我」與「我」的壓迫與平等

因為有了這份對個體生命的基本肯定,我們才可以談如何安排自己的生活,使得短暫的人生變得有價值有趣味一點。但一旦有了「我」,自然也就有了無數與「我」不同的他者。我們的樣貌性情能力出身信仰,都有差異。有了差異,便難免有爭。我們渴望爭得多些資源地位和權力,並以此肯定自己。世間的種種不平等,由此而生。讀政治的人,對此或許感受特深。我們既要活在一起,但又離不開爭,離不開支配與被支配。這多少說明,為什麼權力的正當性問題,是政治學的重要議題。

但肯定個體的獨特差異,必然導致壓迫嗎?不一定。如果我們見到差異的背後,其實有一很深的道德認定,也就是認定作為有自我意識和價值意識的主體,每個人是自己的主人,有自己不可替代的人生,可以為自己的生命作出抉擇並承擔責任,我們或許會在這層意義上,肯定每個人有相同的道德價值,並在制度和生活中努力實踐平等尊嚴的政治。也就是說,我們既肯定個性,鼓勵每個人有獨特的生命情調,同時要彼此尊重,確保每一個體在社會生活中享有平等的權利和機會。這是我常說的,我們要追求一種自由人的平等政治。

我覺得,受過大學教育的人,應該有這樣一份對人的平等關注。但這實在很難。大學是一種精英教育。各位能夠進入大學,之前一定已經歷過無數考試,並將很多同輩甩在後面。而離開大學後,面對的將是更劇烈的競爭。所以,對很多人來說,人生就是一場沒完沒了的競賽,弱者失敗者承受的一切,都是應得的。既然如此,我們如何能夠穿過人的種種差異,看到某些共享的價值,並視此為社會合作的道德基礎,從而對弱者有更多的關懷,對人的平等尊嚴有更大的堅持?這是我在教學中,最難面對的問題。而我不肯定,在今天的大學教育,還有多少思考這類問題的知性空間。

各位同學,這就是我和你們的一點臨別分享。簡單點說,我認為生命有兩重張力。第一重是兩種觀照生命的方式帶來的張力,第二重是生命的差異和平等的張力。這兩重張力,對我們的生活和政治信念有深遠影響。作為中大人,關心生活關心政治,是一生之事,不應隨著披上畢業袍而終。

去年十二月〈當代政治哲學〉的最後一課,我們曾在聯合書院課室外那個裂開的大松子雕塑前照了一張相片。那個大松子啊,笑得活潑率真。在我眼中,你們都是獨一無二的松子。

2010年3月23日

【不能不轉載】中華民國總統馬英九「六四」感言


Cartoon: The New Yorker

中華民國九十九年六月四日

總統發表「六四」感言

刊於中華民國總統府網站

今天,是「六四」天安門事件21週年。

我們紀念這個日子,就如同我們紀念民國36年台灣發生的二二八事件與民國40年代的白色恐怖事件。我們深切期望大陸當局參考臺灣的經驗,誠懇面對「六四」此一重大的人權歷史事件,不僅記取慘痛教訓,不讓悲劇重演,而且採取必要行動,撫平受難者及家屬受到的傷痛與不公。

衡諸歷史,任何政府與人民的衝突,如果以流血收場,政府身為握有公權力的一方,總要負起主要的責任。政府的存在,繫於人民的信賴。當政府以武力對付人民時,受傷的不僅是人民,政府與人民之間的信賴也連帶受到傷害,需要很長的時間才能修補。是以,任何政府面臨類似問題時,必須勇敢面對,以最大的耐心與包容來謀求重建。

兩岸人民同屬中華民族,都是炎黃子孫,理應相互扶持,誠心合作。除了人權議題頗受外界批判外,大陸當局近年重新提倡中華文化,並努力發展經濟,改善民生,臺灣民眾印象深刻。兩年來,兩岸關係趨於好轉,大幅降低臺海緊張情勢,受到兩岸人民與國際社會普遍肯定。

在這全新的歷史條件下,我們希望大陸當局此刻在人權方面展現全新的思維,以充分的誠意與自信,逐步化解重大人權事件所遺留下來的問題,並以更寬宏的氣度,對待異議人士。這不但有助提升大陸人民對大陸當局的信賴,也必然可以大幅拉近兩岸在人權方面的距離,更使世人相信中國大陸的崛起,不僅是和平的,同時也是自由、民主與人權普世價值的顯現。

附:

民進黨中常會針對「六四事件」二十一週年之聲明

刊於民主進步黨網站

2009/6/2

為表達對中國民主化前景之關切,聲援中國民主改革派人士,民主進步黨主席蔡英文在今(2)日中常會上,與出席中常委通過民進黨對中國「六四事件」將屆滿廿一週年之聲明。聲明如下:
 
「六四事件」是中國現代史上最大悲劇之一,二十一年前,面對青年學生要求民主改革的呼聲,中國政府以武力鎮壓,迄今仍未對此一由國家暴力造成之悲劇道歉及賠償,甚至有系統地透過國家機器,將「六四事件」從各種國家檔案、文件記載中抹去,試圖讓中國人民徹底遺忘「六四」。我們誠懇呼籲中國政府應正視此一歷史傷痛,承認錯誤,道歉、賠償,讓仍流亡的學生早日回到中國。
 
我們也正告中國政府,近年,中國雖因經濟發展,國力大為提升,已成為區域強權,但一個強大卻威權的國家,始終讓各國疑懼,也成為區域安全的隱憂。我們呼籲中國政府應該停止打壓民主改革派人士,啟動政治改革工程,讓中國早日走出專制,邁向民主,與自由、人權等普世價值真正接軌。
 
針對馬英九總統一改過去當選之前,每年出席「六四」紀念會之態度,上任後閉口不談「六四」,甚且在去年「六四」二十週年紀念時,發表專文肯定中國民主已有進步,我們深感失望與遺憾。馬政府上任推動兩岸交流協商迄今,更對中國打壓、逮捕民主改革派人士始終保持緘默,我們在此也要給予嚴厲譴責,並嚴正要求政府應該將民主與人權納入兩岸交流的議題清單,讓台灣與中國的互動建立在普世的人權價值與民主制度之上,這應該是兩岸正常交流的重要前提要件。我們認為,台灣與中國之交流,不能降低台灣標準,不能放棄台灣價值,更不能從民主與人權的立場上倒退。
 
未來,民主進步黨將持續與所有關心民主與人權價值的人,共同努力,採取積極有效的行動,與中國的維權團體以及公民社會開展對話,交流經驗,讓民主與人權在台灣繼續生根茁壯,也讓民主與人權早日在中國開花結果。

另:美國國務院的聲明

Message on the Twenty-first Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

Philip J. Crowley Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
June 4, 2010

It is now twenty one years since the tragic events occurred on June 4, 1989 in and around Tiananmen Square. We join others in the international community to urge China to release all those still serving sentences for participating in peaceful protests at that time and since. We ask the Chinese government to provide the fullest possible public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, and to cease harassment of those who participated in the demonstrations and the families of the victims. We also encourage China to protect the universal human rights of all its citizens, including those who peacefully dissent.

【不能不轉載】西南大旱五十年不遇是個大謊言

西南大旱五十年不遇是個大謊言

作者:石三生

我雖然貴為農民出身,但卻從來不敢說自己會種地。這個世界總是很有意思,農民的事情,自己都說不清楚,可很多不是農民的專家學者知識分子卻好像很明白。

這些年,天災人禍不斷,氣候呈現出相當的不正常。古詩中的「冬雷震震,夏雨雪,天地合,乃敢與君絕。」的「冬雷震震」已經在多個地方好多年都成為了現實。雖然有專家辟謠,但人們還是掩飾不住對氣候異常的擔憂。

東北的許多地方,今年連日的大雪不斷,便有人造謠說用雪水煮雞蛋,吃了可以避邪。

我從去年的北方大旱開始關注老天爺,並因此對農業部所說的連續六年糧食大豐收提出了質疑。奈何人微言輕,允許發表的空間又有限,滿團的疑霧終於化作了無影。

今年,當西南大旱開始後,又引發了我的好奇。當然,依照我一貫的原則,就是誰的都不信,只信自己從主流媒體尋找到的蛛絲馬跡。

通過對數萬字的資料進行梳理,我發現了一個天大的謊言,也正是因為的這個謊言,讓我確信:西南地區的大旱是天災,也是人禍。

這個謊言就是「五十年一遇」的大旱說。

搜索近幾年的媒體,你會發現,每當有大災發生的時候,主流報道幾乎都是用一個強調來描繪。不外是:某某地遭遇了五十年(數字隨意,以五十年為下限)不遇的大災。在黨中央的正確領導下,地方政府和各族人民團結一致,終於戰勝了某某災,奪取了又一個豐收年云云。

文革已經過去三十多年,國人的輿論導向依舊停留在毛爺爺的「與天鬥,其樂無窮」的境界。

一句假大空的術語,就把責任統統的歸罪於了老天爺。諱疾忌醫,一直都是國人的傳統,奈何連國事也都如此呢?

明明是三五年就發生的氣候異常,卻每每被誇大成五十年六十年甚至百年。如此說,固然可以推卸掉了人的責任,政府的責任,吸引民眾的同情和慷慨解囊。瞞過了一時,卻不知來年又是如此。

古人常說:亡羊補牢,猶未為晚。為何我們定要等羊痘跑光了,才想起來修羊圈呢?

政府總是訓導民眾要誠信,總喊狼來了的孩子會被狼吃,卻不自覺的自己年年都在喊。

如果政府能實事求是,直面問題的所在,認真研究氣候異常的規律,未雨綢繆,何至於到今天的慘不忍睹。年年大災,年年大豐收。一句謊話,連老天爺也被糊弄的終於不耐煩。

我聽到廣播裡,溫總理在雲南說要努力保證一個好的收成的時候,新華社還在胡扯什麼要奪取農業的豐收!

豐者,增加也,豐富也。農業都損失上百億了,還能化負為零甚至為正?

有人說中國的漢字有時很無恥,大約也就能無恥到這般的地步吧?

下面,還是按照自己莫須有的慣例,僅舉雲南一地之例說明吧。如果說起天府之國的四川,更荒唐。

2005年,雲南大旱。

人民網發表《雲南:遭遇罕見大旱 農民照樣增收》,雲南省省長徐榮凱對記者說:「遭遇近50年來最大干旱,農民現金收入還能夠穩定增長,上半年首次突破千元。這得益於這幾年全省調結構、推畜牧、勞務輸出,搞冬季農業開發!」

2006年,雲南大旱。

中新社發表《雲南遭遇20年來最嚴重旱情 被指是山火頻襲主因 》說:「雲南省防汛抗旱指揮部官員透露,今年以來,雲南省大部分地區降水為特少,氣溫為偏高到特高。據氣像監測表明,全省有百分之八十七的地區出現干旱,其中不少地區為特大干旱或嚴重干旱。“是自有氣像記錄以來的第六個干旱年,為一九八六年以來旱情最嚴重的一年。」

2009年,雲南大旱。

中國新聞網發表《雲南高溫大旱 滇池水位急降》,說:「二月二十三日,雲南省昆明市高原湖泊滇池水位正在急降,湖底龜裂的土地正從湖邊向湖中心延伸。進入二月份以來,雲南省遭遇五十年一遇的嚴重旱情。」

 2010年,雲南大旱。

中國新聞網發表《雲南五十年一遇大旱旱情持續 各界捐款力挺災區》,說:「千萬民眾受災、近千萬畝秋冬農作物絕收、72.9萬學生無飲用水,昆明、大理、曲靖、香格裡拉等地近日連續發生山火,雲南的嚴重旱情牽動著各界人士的心。目前,雲南省已累計投入抗旱資金4.56億元人民幣。2月20日,雲南省政府辦公廳向全省發出通知,決定於2月20日至3月15日在全省範圍內緊急開展向旱災災區獻愛心捐助活動。」

隨後,雲南大旱由50年轉為60年,今天,經過一個多月的發展,已經成為百年不遇的大旱。

2005年,雲南大豐收。

新華網發表題為《天降大旱 地質科技引來「保苗水」》的文章。說:「雲南省地質調查院有關技術人員介紹,在瀘西進行的地下水開發利用及綜合整治項目,總結了西南地區地下水開發利用的多種模式:開發表層泉、岩溶大泉、表層帶富水塊段、飽水帶富水塊段等不同類型的水源地,解決深切割岩溶高中山區、岩溶丘陵區、岩溶台地區等不同岩溶地質環境條件下岩溶水有效開發的多種技術方案。這些方案能有效解決水資源分布不均的問題,為干旱缺水地區找水從根本上提供了辦法。每年從谷雨到立夏,對於雲南來說似乎總是一個難過的"坎兒",天干地裂,旱情總是影響著春耕,甚至直接導致糧食減產。正如三塘鄉黨委書記李俊所說,抗旱救災,還需要防災在前。依靠科學的方法從根本上解決老百姓吃水難的問題,才是真正急農民之所急,解農民之所難。」

2009年,雲南大豐收。

新華網發表《雲南:災年糧食獲豐收 持續15年增產》的文章。雲南省省長秦光榮7日在省十一屆人大二次會議上說:“去年雲南糧食生產在大災之年再獲豐收,總產量達1588萬噸,增長2.7%,持續15年實現糧食產量增加。”

過去的一年中,雲南先後遭遇低溫雨雪冰凍災害、地震、泥石流和洪澇等自然災害,對全省農業生產造成嚴重不利的影響。面對困難,雲南省沉著應對,堅持把“三農”工作放在首位,農業農村經濟取得較快發展。

秦光榮介紹,去年雲南認真落實強農惠農政策,投入財政支農資金177億元,較上年增長38.7%。全省糧食播種面積超過6300萬畝,新增高產穩產農田和基本農田各100萬畝;加強農村水利建設,興建山區「五小水利」25萬件,實施53件病險水庫除險加固工程;大力推廣農業科技,加快發展農業產業化經營,促進農業提質增效。

據介紹,今年雲南省還將實施「百億斤糧食增產計劃」,確保糧食播種面積穩定在6500萬畝左右,進一步新增高產穩產農田和基本農田各100萬畝,組織實施200個糧食高產示範區建設,力爭糧食產量增加50萬噸。

還是在2009年,一篇《建國六十年來雲南糧食生產成就顯著》高歌了雲南省建國以來,農業生產取得的偉大成就。曰:

1、家庭聯產承包責任制極大地調動了農民的種糧積極性

2、糧食綜合生產能力日新月異

3、從吃飯難、吃不飽到糧食基本自給、豐年有余

4、糧食生產的科技含量不斷增加

5、種植業結構調整成效顯著,農民從溫飽走向小康

可惜啊,這麼偉大的成就,竟然不堪一擊。人民網2010年3月20日,發表了《西南大旱超五千萬人受災 災民吃野菜充飢》。蔗糖價格劇烈波動,災區的大米等商品已經開始漲價了。

還繼續怪罪老天爺嗎?

人都說:聰明的人不會在一個地方絆倒兩次。可我們的主流媒體和政府,咋就被50年絆倒一次之後,再也爬不起來了呢?

總是撒謊的孩子,終究是會被狼吃的嗎?

27歲的卡爾·馬克思論新聞自由和審查制度(Censorship)

On Freedom of the Press

[Censorship]

Karl Marx (Age: 27)

We have shown how the press law expresses a right and the censorship law a wrong. The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end, and could not the press also adopt the principle and boast: "The end justifies the means"?

The censorship law, therefore, is not a law, it is a police measure; but it is a bad police measure, for it does not achieve what it intends, and it does not intend what it achieves.

If the censorship law wants to prevent freedom as something objectionable, the result is precisely the opposite. In a country of censorship, every forbidden piece of printed matter, i.e., printed without being censored, is an event. It is considered a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers. It is regarded as an exception, and if freedom can never cease to be of value to mankind, so much the more valuable is an exception to the general lack of freedom. Every mystery has its attraction. Where public opinion is a mystery to itself, it is won over from the outset by every piece of writing that formally breaks through the mystical barriers. The censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.

If the censorship is honest in its intention, it would like to prevent arbitrariness, but it makes arbitrariness into a law. No danger that it can avert is greater than itself. The mortal danger for every being lies in losing itself. Hence lack of freedom is the real mortal danger for mankind. For the time being, leaving aside the moral consequences, bear in mind that you cannot enjoy the advantages of a free press without putting up with its inconveniences. You cannot pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose with a free press?

The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises their crude material form. It is a people’s frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews its soul.

In the course of our exposal we have shown that censorship and press law are as different as arbitrariness and freedom, as formal law and actual law. But what holds good of the essence, holds good also of the appearance. What rightly holds good of both, holds good also of their application. Just as a press law is different from a censorship law, so the judge’s attitude to the press differs from the attitude of the censor.

Of course, our speaker, whose eyes are fixed on the heavens, sees the earth far below him as a contemptible heap of dust, so that he has nothing to say about any flowers except that they are dusty. Here too, therefore, he sees only two measures which are equally arbitrary in their application, for arbitrariness is acting according to individual discretion, and the latter, he says, is inseparable from spiritual things, etc., etc. If the understanding of spiritual things is individual, how can one spiritual view be more right than another, the opinion of the censor more right than the opinion of the author? But we understand the speaker. It is notable that he goes out of his way to describe both censorship and press law as being without right in their application, in order to prove the right of the censorship, for since he knows everything in the world is imperfect, the only question for him is whether arbitrariness should be on the side of the people or on the side of the government.

His mysticism turns into the licence of putting law and arbitrariness on the same level and seeing only a formal difference where moral and legal opposites are concerned, for his polemic is directed not against the press law, but against law in general. Or is there any law which is necessarily such that in every single case it must be applied as the legislator intended and all arbitrariness absolutely excluded? Incredible audacity is needed to call such a meaningless task the philosopher’s stone, since it could only be put forward by the most extreme ignorance. The law is universal. The case which has to be settled in accordance with the law is a particular case. To include the particular in the universal involves a judgment. The judgment is problematic. The law requires also a judge. If laws applied themselves, courts would be superfluous.

But everything human is imperfect! Therefore, edite, bibite! [A] Why do you want judges, since judges are human? Why do you want laws, since laws can only be executed by human beings, and all human operations are imperfect? Submit yourselves then to the goodwill of your superiors! Rhenish justice, like that of Turkey, is imperfect! Therefore, edite, bibite!

What a difference there is between a judge and a censor!

The censor has no law but his superiors. The judge has no superiors but the law. The judge, however, has the duty of interpreting the law, as he understands it after conscientious examination, in order to apply it in a particular case. The censor’s duty is to understand the law as officially interpreted for him in a particular case. The independent judge belongs neither to me nor to the government. The dependent censor is himself a government organ. In the case of the judge, there is involved at most the unreliability of an individual intellect, in the case of the censor the unreliability of an individual character. The judge has a definite press offense put before him; confronting the censor is the spirit of the press. The judge judges my act according to a definite law; the censor not only punishes the crime, he makes it. If I am brought before the court, I am accused of disobeying an existing law, and for a law to be violated it must indeed exist. Where there is no press law there is no law which can be violated by the press. The censorship does not accuse me of violating an existing law. It condemns my opinion because it is not the opinion of the censor and his superiors. My openly performed act, which is willing to submit itself to the world and its judgment, to the state and its law, has sentence passed on it by a hidden, purely negative power, which cannot give itself the form of law, which shuns the light of day, and which is not bound by any general principles.

A censorship law is an impossibility because it seeks to punish not offenses but opinions, because it cannot be anything but a formula for the censor, because no state has the courage to put in general legal terms what it can carry out in practice through the agency of the censor. For that reason, too, the operation of the censorship is entrusted not to the courts but to the police.

Even if censorship were in fact the same thing as justice, in the first place this would remain a fact without being a necessity. But, further, freedom includes not only what my life is, but equally how I live, not only that I do what is free, but also that I do it freely. Otherwise what difference would there be between an architect and a beaver except that the beaver would be an architect with fur and the architect a beaver without fur?

Our speaker returns superfluously once again to the effects of freedom of the press in the countries where it actually exists. Since we have already dwelt on this subject at length, we shall here only touch further on the French press. Apart from the fact that the defects of the French press are the defects of the French nation, we find that the evil is not where the speaker looks for it. The French press is not too free; it is not free enough. It is true that it is not subject to a spiritual censorship, but it is subject to a material censorship, in the shape of high money sureties. It operates materially precisely because it is taken out of its proper sphere and drawn into the sphere of large trade speculations. Moreover, large trade speculations are a matter for large towns. Hence the French press is concentrated at few points, and if a material force has a demoniac effect when concentrated at few points, why should this not apply to a spiritual force also?

If, however, you are bent on judging freedom of the press not by its idea, but by its historical existence, why do you not look for it where it historically exists? Naturalists seek by experiment to reproduce a natural phenomenon in its purest conditions. You do not need to make any experiments. You find the natural phenomenon of freedom of the press in North America in its purest, most natural form. But if there are great historical foundations for freedom of the press in North America, those foundations are still greater in Germany. The literature of a people, and the intellectual culture bound up with it, are indeed not only the direct historical foundations of the press, but are the latter’s history itself. And what people in the world can boast of these most immediate historical foundations for freedom of the press more than the German people can?

But, our speaker again breaks in, woe to Germany’s morals if its press were to become free, for freedom of the press produces "an inner demoralization, which seeks to undermine faith in man’s higher purpose and thereby the basis of true civilization".

It is the censored press that has a demoralizing effect. Inseparable from it is the most powerful vice, hypocrisy, and from this, its basic vice, come all its other defects, which lack even the rudiments of virtue, and its vice of passivity, loathsome even from the aesthetic point of view. The government hears only its own voice, it knows that it hears only its own voice, yet it harbors the illusion that it hears the voice of the people, and it demands that the people, too, should itself harbor this illusion. For its part, therefore, the people sinks partly into political superstition, partly into political disbelief, or, completely turning away from political life, becomes a rabble of private individuals.

Since the press daily praises the government-inspired creations in the way that God spoke of His Creations only on the Sixth day: "And, behold, it was very good", and since, however, one day necessarily contradicts the other, the press lies continually and has to deny even any consciousness of lying, and must cast off all shame.

Since the nation is forced to regard free writings as unlawful, it becomes accustomed to regard what is unlawful as free, freedom as unlawful and what is lawful as unfree. In this way censorship kills the state spirit.

But our speaker is afraid of freedom of the press owing to his concern for "private persons". He overlooks that censorship is a permanent attack on the rights of private persons, and still more on ideas. He grows passionate about the danger to individual persons, and ought we not to grow passionate about the danger threatening society as a whole?

We cannot draw a sharper distinction between his view and ours than by contrasting his definitions of "bad frames of mind" to ours.

A bad frame of mind, he says, is "pride, which recognizes no authority in church and state". And ought we not to regard as a bad frame of mind the refusal to recognize the authority of reason and law?

"It is envy which preaches abolition of everything that the rabble calls aristocracy."

But we say, it is envy which wants to abolish the eternal aristocracy of human nature, freedom, an aristocracy about which even the rabble can have no doubt.

"It is the malicious gloating which delights in personalities, whether lies or truth, and imperiously demands publicity so that no scandal of private life will remain hidden."

It is the malicious gloating which extracts tittle-tattle and personalities from the great life of the peoples, ignores historical reason and serves up to the public only the scandals of history; being quite incapable of judging the essence of a matter, it fastens on single aspects of a phenomenon and on individuals, and imperiously demands mystery so that every blot on public life will remain hidden.

"It is the impurity of the heart and imagination which is titillated by obscene pictures."

It is the impurity of the heart and imagination which is titillated by obscene pictures of the omnipotence of evil and the impotence of good, it is the imagination which takes pride in sin, it is the impure heart which conceals its secular arrogance in mystical images.

"It is despair of one’s own salvation which seeks to stifle the voice of conscience by denial of God."

It is despair of one’s own salvation which makes personal weaknesses into weaknesses of mankind, in order to rid one’s own conscience of them; it is despair of the salvation of mankind which prevents mankind from obeying its innate natural laws and preaches the necessity of immaturity; it is hypocrisy which shelters behind God without believing in His reality and in the omnipotence of the good; it is self-seeking which puts personal salvation above the salvation of all.

These people doubt mankind in general but canonize individuals. They draw a horrifying picture of human nature and at the same time demand that we should bow down before the holy image of certain privileged individuals. We know that man singly is weak, but we know also that the whole is strong.

Finally, the speaker recalled the words proclaimed from the branches of the tree of knowledge for whose fruits we negotiate today as then:

"Ye shall not surely die, in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Although we doubt that the speaker has eaten of the tree of knowledge, and that we (the Rhine Province Assembly of the Estates) then negotiated with the devil, about which at least Genesis tells us nothing, nevertheless we concur with the view of the speaker and merely remind him that the devil did not lie to us then, for God himself says: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

We can reasonably let the speaker’s own words be the epilogue to this speech:

"Writing and speaking are mechanical accomplishments."

However much our readers may be tired of these "mechanical accomplishments", we must, for the sake of completeness, let the urban estate, after the princely and knightly estates, also give vent to its feelings against freedom of the press. We are faced here with the opposition of the bourgeois, not of the citoyen.

The speaker from the urban estate believes that he joins Sieyès in making the philistine remark:

"Freedom of the press is a fine thing, so long as bad persons do not meddle in it." "Against that no proven remedy has yet been found", etc., etc.

The point of view which calls freedom of the press a thing deserves praise at least on account of its naively. This speaker can be reproached with anything at all, but not with lack of sobriety or excess of imagination.

So freedom of the press is a fine thing, and something which embellishes the sweet customary mode of life, a pleasant, worthy thing. But there are also bad persons, who misuse speech to tell lies, the brain to plot, the hands to steal, the feet to desert. Speech and thought, hands and feet would be fine things — good speech, pleasant thought, skilful hands, most excellent feet — if only there were no bad persons to misuse them! No remedy against that has yet been found.

"Sympathy for the constitution and freedom of the press must necessarily be weakened when it is seen that they are bound up with eternally changeable conditions in that country" (France) "and with an alarming uncertainty about the future.

When for the first time the discovery in the science of the universe was made that the earth is a mobile perpetuum, many a phlegmatic German must have taken a tight hold of his nightcap and sighed over the eternally changeable conditions of his Fatherland, and an alarming uncertainty about the future must have made him dislike a house that turned upside down at every moment.

Rheinische Zeitung, No. 135, Supplement, May 15 1842

陳雲《正體》

五年前有幸在香港《信報財經新聞》上讀到陳雲先生的專欄,深為歎服。個人以為陳雲先生身上的舊時文人氣質,兩岸三地在世的文化人無人可及。今天貼出陳生宏文《正體》,再次向正體字致敬,並斗膽奉勸幾近毀滅炎黃正統文化的中共政權懸崖勒馬、痛改前非,早日恢復正體字在我泱泱中華文化中的核心地位。

德國前總理赫爾穆特.施密特(Helmut Schmidt)有云:「保護本國的語言傳統,是國族生死攸關之事。」希望一向喜用正體字寫信的溫總,在任內做出突破性舉動,如是義舉,數百年後亦將為龍的傳人頌讚。

正體

文:陳雲

刊於《信報財經新聞》二零零八年七月三日
收入《中文解毒》一書第十章

是日報慶,宜正體直排。三十五年來,《信報》維持中文直排為主,橫排為輔,直排文章不以阿拉伯數字入文,九七之後,香港報紙紛紛夷化之際,《信報》依然故我,成了中國文字的域外孤忠。至於曹仁超先生的「投資者日記」,文言白話與英文諧音夾雜,雖是遊戲文字,卻是古道熱腸,是港式「三蘇」體的文化保留地。有了他押尾陣,其他人就不敢放肆了。

正體直排,行文素潔,是舊日香港正道報紙的最低要求,今日已是最高的報格了。語文是最後一道文化屏障,中文不再正體直排,西文與阿拉伯數字便乘虛而入,漢文正統就沒落了。正道報紙要直排,接通漢朝制定楷書以來的文脈,這是文化國格,連日本人都懂得的。

程十「發」病逝

正道須以憂患始,不妨以一喪氣之事說起。香港既有富豪李實發,李大發、李十發之類自是有的。大陸人口十三億,在悶聲發大財的中央號召下,叫大發、十發、萬發的人,所在多有。二○○七年七月十九日讀《信報》,新聞版第十三頁,題為〈國畫大師程十發病逝〉,通篇報道連帶照片註明都是「程十發」,當下有兩重悲哀。第一重是大師西去,丹青之林,又少一人,而且這大師難得也畫插畫和連環畫,兒時讀《阿Q正傳》、《聊齋誌異》,看過他的插畫。其時只知有人叫「三毛」,豈有人名「十髮」?翻閱字書,才知「髮」是古代度量衡制度,寸之千分之一也。《說文》曰:「十髮為程,十程為分,十分為寸。」因「十髮為程」,故大師姓程、名十髮就有妙趣。

第二重悲哀,是記者編輯恐怕將大陸的簡體字新聞稿〈国画大師程十发病逝〉按鍵轉為繁體之後,也不重看一下,或是看了,不識畫家程十髮。中共國務院規定出版物要簡體橫排及以阿拉伯數字入文(重印古籍除外),香港徵引內地消息,易出差錯。然則,《信報》仍不如香港頗多執意阿拉伯數字化的報紙,不至於寫成「程10發」,也聊可安慰矣。同年十二月六日,柳葉在《信報》副刊紀念大師,先寫程十發,後寫程十髮,不知逝者何人。年前,我在書展上看了《尺牘10 講》,胡傳海著(上海書畫出版社,二○○二),講歷代書家的尺牘章法,封面是橫排的印刷體,「十」寫為「10」,大煞風景。幸而詩人李金髮於一九五一年自駐外使館移居美國,一九七六年終命異鄉,避過身後不得正名之辱。

祖先神靈俱受辱

工序外判大陸,名字隨時受辱。二○○一年五月,香港中央圖書館啟用,台階刻有名人金句,其中錢鍾書《寫在人生邊上》的摘錄,「鍾」字誤作「鐘」字。至於姓趙的,找不到簡化偏旁,中共負責漢字簡化的一幫文痞,便用打X的方法,趙成了赵,如政治批鬥,祖宗十八代都罵了。姓蕭的很多被幹部強迫改為姓肖,漢姓混同了契丹及蒙古姓,祖宗化夏為夷。大陸擺壽宴,變了擺「寿」宴,減筆折壽,大吉利市。

莫說是人,當世做神仙的,也會辱及。二○○七年香港《法國五月》(Le French May)的十五周年紀念刊物印刷本,訴說香港五月節日,凡聖包羅:「中國的五月不但滿天神佛,而且節日一個接一個:佛誕、天後誕、譚公誕、國際勞動節,還有中國青年節,想不到五月還滿多節日吧?」貪圖工價便宜,請內地人編書,后後不分,「天后」娘娘到了香港,自要改稱「天後」娘娘了。不印成「後天誕」,已是校對有功了。

一黨專政之文字符號

見微知著,簡體字道出中共粗疏急進的現代化策略。新舊並存還是去舊革新,是現代化最核心的策略。君主立憲是並存,在過渡之中不斷改良;廢帝制而試行共和,是遽然行革命。正體與俗體及手寫草書並存,觀其興替,是改良;通令全國行簡體,禁制正體,則是革命。中共強令推行簡體字,禁制正體字,只在古籍重印及書法題詞容許正體字,有如一黨專政,只留下民主黨派和政協做裝飾花瓶。

楷書有楷模之意,魏晉時,楷隸演變為正書,隋唐時統整字形,為歷代之正體。正體字用於刻板印刷,也稱正版字,簡體字舊稱簡筆字、簡化字,後來中共正名為簡體字,另造「繁體字」之名,與簡體字相對,企圖淡化「正體字」之名位。文字乃國體所依,簡體字乃當年用以快速散播共產思想之工具,如以「斗」代鬥,當年在蘇區(中華蘇維埃)稱為「解放字」。舊時中國,手寫的減筆字與正體並存,如禮字之古體為「礼」,但由於與「札」字混淆,故另造「禮」字,以豊為音,豊亦是祭禮所用之禮器(從「豆」,食器也),手寫仍可作「礼」字。若以立法規定「礼」字替代「禮」字,則無視古人造字之原委與文明之演化,以為是復古,其實是復歸蒙昧與野蠻。

漢字定型以來,三千多年,都是繁化與簡化並行,繁化以辨義,簡化以利書,兼且俗體及行草書體並用,只是在中共建政之後,才有中央政權主導下的系統簡化,且以國法推行。中國歷朝都有新造字,但容許舊體,也容許異體字,學子兼收並蓄,日後考訂文字,辨別雅俗,有個根底。

簡繁演化,一任俗成

工業化的社會強調標準,以同質性促進快速交流,新建國家都提倡標準語及典範字。然而中國是古老文化國家,文字與交流語之統一,應從緩漸進。字體隨世人之應用,自會演化,繁簡有所依歸,不必明令強行。舊時我讀小學,中文老師教的正體字,今日很多都採用了原本並存的簡體。如臺灣的臺,今通寫作台,鬭爭的鬭,今日都作鬥,鏽亦作銹。同理,軟取代輭,砲取代礮,咀代替嘴(地名),岩代巖,灶代竃,飢代饑,晒代曬。糭今作粽,癡今多寫為痴。證與証仍是並存。往日「纔」與「才」分工,一為虛字(我纔知道),一為實字(天才的才),分工雖然合理,但纔字難寫,只好從簡。往日群羣並立,峰峯相連,床牀同用,麵麪互見,今都以前字取代後字矣。舊日的舖與鋪,今日仍是分工,電掣、手錶與身份等,尚在香港。

少時讀書,小學課本寫的麪飽,今已改作麵包。飽字與食飽的飽字混淆,後來包就缺了個食字。然則自此之後,後人難以領略唐伯虎之絕聯「食飽包食飽」矣。民初,另創了「麭」字,經不起時間考驗而湮沒了。至於那個麪字,換了麵字,標音的字由生僻的「丏」改為熟悉的「面」,倒是合理,麥字部首仍在,看得飽肚。大陸的簡體字「面包」,沒了食字,連麥字都消失了。食面做的包,或面上長出了包,盡是觸目驚心,山西的「刀削面」更是嚇人。大陸人習以為常,看得順眼,是由於語文感覺自小已經蔫死了。

陳生另有一篇《簡筆》,也貼在這裡供各位參考:

簡筆

文:陳雲

刊於《信報財經新聞》二零零八年七月十日
收入《中文解毒》一書第十一章

自小在農牧工會看《人民畫報》等大陸書刊,幾乎是同時學會兩種字體,初中的時候在土共資助的元朗書店買內地的武術書籍,用五角錢港幣買了書店櫃台擺放的《簡化字總表檢字》,認識了簡體字的簡化方法及例外。當時在學校和港台書報讀正體字,在大陸書刊讀簡體字,香港坊間有俗體字和減筆字,古籍有古體字和異體字, 見一個認一個,只覺得有趣,無礙學習。舊日香港各式文字並行,是不經意的文化民主。

豐富多姿的舊時文字

舊日無電腦打字,鉛字排版昂貴,商業用字多是手寫張貼,社團的印刷品多是手寫油印,俗體字在舊日街招告示、傳單小冊、戲院畫板及茶樓酒肆,處處可見,今日僅 存於舊時歌譜及粵語長片字幕矣。點字寫作点,飛字寫作 ,年字寫作 ,藥簡化為葯,戀簡化為恋,褲簡化為衭,俗體字一般省筆,然而為了辨義,也有增筆之處,如在「人」字的橫捺之上多加兩點,以辨別「入」字。與學校講課的刻 印書籍教材不同,俗體字來自各式的手寫本,並無範本,是自成一體的民間文字傳承,然則如今都被普及的學校教育及便宜的電腦打字淘洗去了。正體字在港台仍有 傳承,仍有人堅持其文字正道,然而俗體字之消逝,如很多方言的消逝一樣,無人注意,無人憐惜。

兒時學校視簡體字為共黨字,俗體字為坊間流俗,前者視作政治禁忌,嚴禁使用,後者如有減筆成分,如葯、点等字,寫之無礙。公開考試禁寫簡體字之令,在上世紀八十年代中期之後放寬,考試當局並無解釋,然而想必與中英簽署聯合聲明,奠定香港回歸有關矣。

法定簡體,其弊有三

正體字有典範的楷書刻印標準,簡筆字與俗體字的地位一樣,只屬於異體字。大陸頒布簡體字為法定用字之際,廢棄正體字之名,改稱「繁體字」。繁體之名帶有貶義,誣陷傳統文化為繁複、繁雜、繁瑣。即使不稱正體,也應稱為原體或舊體。

漢字應以類似往日翰林院的穩當機構(今日可稱「國家語文委員會」),定期訂正,商議執行,而不是一批頒布了事。中共法定簡體字之最大流弊,是違反漢字約定俗 成的漫長成文過程,改以體系性質,急速大批造字,且以共產國家的權威強令執行。一批過的文字簡化,令造字原則受到某些學者的成見所限(在中共是一群不學無 術之徒),顧慮不周。中共建政初期,銳意鏟除舊文化,從不考慮日後會有傳統文化復興之事。如簡體的「后宮」,是皇后的正宮還是皇帝的後宮,當年就不加顧 慮,反正封建舊物一掃而光了。將「願」簡化為「愿」之時,也不會預計今日內地人竟然重新讀起《論語》來,讀到「鄉愿」這個詞(愿是謹厚之意,與願不同 義)。某些生僻字,日後變成常用之後,便來不及簡化,如中共辱罵西方「政治挑釁」的釁字。

其二,中文之詞組並無分隔,端賴文意辨義,是故歷代添文造字,演化字義,增強文字傳意的準繩。中共以簡化字取代歷代的新造字之後,難以預計日後中文的構詞組合。如廢棄了「製」字,生物化學興起之後,用簡 體字寫「制氧」,不看前文後理,誰知是抑制氧氣還是製造氧氣?實驗室從內地買來一個細菌培植箱,環境控制鍵板上有一個「制氧」的鍵,香港的技術員敢貿然按 掣嗎?特別是第二批簡化字(一九七七年頒布的「二簡字」,後廢除),混淆更多。如新詞「午後」與「舞后」流行之後,簡體字「午后」是午後還是舞后?正體字 的「午後請舞后喝茶」,很是清楚,換了簡體就麻煩了。即使五十年代頒布的第一批簡體字,在「船隻進入運河」與「船只進入運河」之間,簡體也是無從分辨,若 要辨義,惟有增詞另述。至於大陸的色慾笑話,女子向男友傳短訊「來我家吧,我下面給你吃」,文意曖昧。

其三,是簡化的文字學義理不一致,悖理之處甚多。在聲符簡化方面,由於中共簡體字與普通話同時強令推行,有消滅方言之策,故此簡化時只以北音為主,歧視其他方言:如艦之簡化為舰,釀之簡化為 酿,竊之簡化為窃,都是以北音為主。正體字「艦」、「釀」和「竊」的聲符,在粵語和北方官話都是同樣讀得出來的。「鬱」字簡化為「郁」,也是遷就北音。廣東原有的簡化字,如衭字,由於不通北音,就無採用,褲只是簡化為裤,省不了多少筆畫。

省字增文,枉作小人

為了加速政治宣傳,中共以簡體字「掃盲」(掃除文盲的簡稱,文明社會叫「識字教育」)。以文字學義理而言,簡化字復用古體字,以「同音通假」的方法淘汰歷代 的新造同音字,是違反文明演化之理。常用字之通假(如麵、髮、鬆等),混淆尤甚。通假字是異字同寫,化詞為音,如干(干幹榦乾)、斗(斗鬥)、后(后 後)、面(麵面)、谷(谷穀)、发(發髮),余(余餘)、咸(咸鹹)、复(複覆復)、松(忪鬆)、吊(吊弔)、念(念唸)、挽(挽輓)、沖(沖衝)、郁 (郁鬱)、历(歷曆)、庄(裝莊)、获(獲穫)、纤(纖縴)、御(御禦)、折(折摺)、范(范範)、钟(鐘鍾)等。原本是望文生義,通假之後變了憑聲猜 義,中文局部變成拼音字,意符變為音符,加上同時推行音調貧乏的北方普通話,同音字多,行文講話需要大量採用複合詞來辨義,致令內地人不論在口語或是文 書,多是囉囉唆唆,正話曲說。文字簡化了,卻換來長篇累牘。

簡體字易寫難認,乃造字學之一大敗筆。很多簡化字由行草而來,書寫方便,印刷成 書卻難以辨認。鸟與马,风、凤與凡,气與乞,丰與主,无與天,驟眼看不出差異。邏輯虛詞如沒有與设有、沒法與设法、沒想與设想,一字看錯,全句讀錯。進 入電腦打字時代,中文輸入法可減正體字書寫之困,而且字體筆畫愈多,輸入的編碼反而愈少,字形也鮮有重複,打正體字變得比打簡體字更快。假若當初是逐步整 理字體,而不是一次頒令,便可以靜待印字技術演進,不至有枉作聰明之憾。猶如當年大陸如果容許自由經濟與國營企業及農業公社混合並存,不一次過強制推行共 產主義,大陸也不會延誤國計民生三十多年。

傷殺語言心靈

簡體字之大患,是傷殺國人的語言心理意識。簡化字禍及造字理念,內地人也慨嘆文字簡化之後,「親不見,愛無心,廠空空,產不生」。簡化字形妨礙象形字的規律,打擊國人對獨一無二的中國文字系統的文化自信,加速中國文字的符碼化,這恰好是配合早年中共要將漢字拉丁化、完全脫離傳統文化的計謀。古人即使造新 字,也顧及象形,如白雲的「云」字借用作說話的「云」之後,就另造「雲」字。甲骨文及金文的古體「云 」字略有浮雲舒卷之形,楷書乃有雨字以象形。今大陸簡化成楷體的「云」字,以為是恢復古字,實則是食古不化,書體不同,由古體轉為楷體,就失了象形之義 了。至於與說話的「云」字混淆,就懶得理會了,當年怎料到今日大陸竟然時興子曰詩云的古書,學界明星在電視開講國學?

其次,是文字美學與書 法修養,正體字乃由楷書法帖而來,空間線條勻稱,寫之讀之,心正氣平,有駕馭複雜事態之耐性,使人做事恰如其分。如手書正體的「鹽」與「鬱」,無疑是難, 但寫之各部呼應,令人做事顧慮周到,留有餘地。中共推行簡體字,是要斬斷正體字傳遞的人文美學,方便鼓吹言文鄙俚、行動粗暴、不留餘地的政治鬥爭。今日大 陸很多人言談喧嘩,行動魯莽,不識大體,也略可歸咎於簡體字以醜為美之積弊焉。

領導人破格之專權

中華基督教會桂華山中學的學生在二零零七年八月二十二日獲得溫家寶回信及題詞。溫總題的兩句詩是:「杜鵑再拜憂天淚,精衛無窮填海心」。溫家寶的信,從信封到信函到題詞,都不寫簡體字。可見簡體字對於高高在上的領導人來說,是不大莊重或成氣候的文字。若把「葉」姓的校長寫成「叶」,溫家寶寫成「温家宝」,题词的「精衛」寫成「精卫」、「憂天淚」寫成「忧天泪」,就無法突顯溫總的文化素養了。

艾未未為《華爾街時報》撰寫的文章:Google Gives Us Hope

Google Gives Us Hope

If China can remain powerful though it limits freedom of speech, what kind of monster will it become?

By AI WEIWEI  (艾未未)

FEBRUARY 10, 2010

China may have become the second-biggest economy in the world, but its political system remains stuck in the early 20th century. Even as Chinese people’s horizons are broadening, the government clings to a one-party ideology that is hostile to personal freedom. Technology is making possible greater expression and political participation, but that has only prompted the authorities to work harder to stifle these impulses.

All this makes Google’s decision to stop censoring to protect its China operations especially significant. First, it is encouraging for the Chinese people to see that a leading Internet company recognizes that censorship is a violation of basic human rights and values. Such controls damage the core ethos underpinning the Internet.

To stand up and speak out in a society in which those values are under constant attack requires courage and deserves moral support. Politicians and enterprises should not trade those basic rights for profits, because any short-term deal will only lead to long-term losses.

In several cases the judicial system has used information from an accused person’s email as evidence of attempting to overthrow the government. This is a clear case showing how an authoritarian state can use technology not to benefit social life and improve political participation, but rather to violate the privacy of individuals and control their thinking, communication and expression.

From last October, I found that two of my Gmail accounts were being hacked by unknown intruders, and my Gmail messages were being automatically transferred to an unknown address. Other activists have reported the same intrusions to their Gmail accounts.

Most discouraging to those of us who are fighting for increased freedom is the tendency for developed nations to lower the bar to please China. They make excuses not to concern themselves with violations of human rights. To espouse universal values and then blind oneself to China’s active hostility to those values is irresponsible and naïve.

When American officials come to China with a pretty smile and the soft tone of a so-called "friendly gesture," this only tells us how fragile and vulnerable these moral standards can be. It makes the people still in the struggle feel disappointed.

In recent months China has tightened its censorship over every medium, from the Internet to the mainstream media to instant messaging over mobile phones. This is the mark of a government that has lost confidence in its own ideology and is nervous about its power to control its own people. Stopping the free exchange of information ultimately hampers economic growth and opportunity, which is the Chinese government’s main claim to legitimacy. The question then is how a state based on limiting information flows and freedom of speech can remain powerful. And if it can, what kind of monster it will become.

Mr. Ai is a Beijing-based artist and activist.

原文地址:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575054331237346618.html