沟通的困境
木愉
人其实是不能沟通的,所以人的孤独是一种宿命。这种孤独不是一种身体上的形单影只,而是一种灵魂上永远找不到港湾的漂泊。
你对一段音乐的独特理解乃至对一幅画的奇异感受,能够准确无误地传达给他人而又可能让他人准确无误地与你一致吗?你在阳光下的忧郁和雨雾中的欣喜能期望他人的一星半点理解吗?你的痛苦你的烦恼以及你的快活可以还原为标准化的物理学语言而让人们一目了然地理解吗?都不能!就说癖好,有人热衷于吃活蚂蚁,有人喜欢收藏肮脏的指甲,有的须眉大汉两胯之间总爱夹一张小儿的尿片。旁人能够跟他们心有灵犀一点通吗?当你费尽周章去解释自己的怪僻而企图让人接纳你的意念但发现是一场彻头彻尾的徒劳的时候,你才意识到“雄辩是银,沉默是金”。人们常常感激涕零的理解最多只是得到了友善的一瞥罢了。至于心灵深处的前因后果则犹如埋藏在喜马拉雅山顶亘古不变的冰雪之下,永远也不可触及。
人的孤独有着生物学上的基础。据说人躲藏危险的一个闪避动作就包含了十万个生化反应,没有两个人染色体上的DNA和RNA的遗传密码会雷同一致,所以人与人之间的个体差异足以决定每个人十万个生化反应的排列组合的不同。
常人尚然不能沟通,先知先觉就更不能期望与他人沟通,因为他们见人之所未见,想人之所未想。比如,中国的孔子、屈原,又比如外国的梵高、尼采、贝多芬、都无不是一个个孤独无着的灵魂。于是,叔本华才说了“伟大的灵魂是不怕孤独的。”这句话的前提是孤独的无奈,然后才有了孤独的无畏。人其实是喜欢人多势众的,只有到了万不得已的地步,才能说出这种夜行人吹口哨的话来。
相传庄子与惠子在桥上赏鱼。庄子说:“你看鱼好快活呵!”惠子反诘道:“你又不是鱼,怎麽知道鱼快活!?”然而庄子又这样辩解道:“你不是我,怎麽知道我不知道鱼的快活!?”这个传说活脱脱地道出了人与人之间的不可沟通。人与人之间不可沟通这种状况导致哲学家们继而只相信自己的感觉,唯自己感觉独尊,其余的东西存在不存在都不重要了。譬如贝克莱断言存在在于被感知。发展到休谟却连自己的感觉也不能信赖。到了后来,甚至连人自身这个主体存在都存了问题,于是就有了笛卡尔的著名论断:“我思故我在。”发展到现代,人与人之间的隔膜愈益突出,于是有了烙下存在主义印记的浑然于社会与世界格格不入的人物,有了揭示这种隔膜的整个现代派艺术。
人不能与人沟通,便只好去与动物沟通,于是有了价值连城的宠物。那些老妪们在阿猫阿狗的汪汪泪眼中找到了自己苦苦希冀的共鸣以及对自己苦难命运的同情。然而阿猫阿狗的低级灵魂恐怕总还是不能与精密的人类灵魂共谐共振的。于是便有了对上帝的膜拜,上帝是无所不能的,上帝是无所不知的,所以上帝应该能够体察每一个人心灵深处的隐秘以及不可言传的苦衷。可是事实上,这条沟通之途也不畅通。张三立德行善,如履薄冰,然而灾祸连连,厄运跌交;而李四失德败行、肆无忌惮,反倒鸿运高照,一路顺风。人们向外找不到沟通的客体,便只好反过来走向内心,于是有了潜心内省的神秘主义。然则内省毕竟不是一种沟通,因为沟通总是涉及到彼与此,而不是彼与彼或者此与此。
人的不能沟通导致了人们行为的冲突,一种内在的精神分野演变成外在的活动相左。所以有了攻讦、倾轧、掳掠、杀戮和战争。于是庄子豪迈地说“天马行空,独往独来。”而陈子昂则悲哀地说要“前不见古人,后不见来者。独怆然而涕下。”西方的哲学家洛克和霍布斯则提出了社会契约论,让人们放弃个人内心因孤独而肇始的行为冲突,接受外在的共同规范的制约。这样就孕育了现代民主社会。
不能沟通固然给人们带来了诸如烦畏死这样阴暗的心理,可是同时也产生了孤独的英雄和英雄的孤独,创造了百彩纷呈的众生象,免除了千人一面的枯燥,横亘起一道区分人与动物的分水岭。
- 社会契约论是卢梭写的吧?posted on 02/06/2004
老叔 要偏执一些,观点偏颇一方才有趣。 比如只讲沟通受阻的负面。
圆润光滑的文章让人不知所从, 矛盾犹疑, 心里发毛。
偏执的人是正确的人,偏执的道理最动人。 - Re: 社会契约论是卢梭写的吧?posted on 02/06/2004
Although similar ideas can be traced back to the Greek Sophists, social-contract theories had their greatest currency in the 17th and 18th centuries and are associated with such names as the Englishmen Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau. - posted on 02/06/2004
~{D>SPV5DL{WSV83vAKR;8vFU1iNJLb#,5+SP:6`NR2;D96M,5D5X7=!#=v>Y<8@}!#HK:MHKV.<d2;D95M(V;JGNJLb5DR;8v7=Cf#,AmR;7=Cf#,4S8|9c7:5DJ1?UIO?4#,HK:MHKV.<dTZ>+Iq2cCfIOJG?IRT95M(5D#,7qTrN^7(=bJMHK@`<8G'DjNDCwVPRUJu44Ww5DC`QS2;O":MK<Ok5D4+3P!#Ub8vJ14z1;:vJS5D9B6@5DRUJu<R;rK<OkU_#,OB8vJ14zR2Pm>MSP2;IYV*Rt!#OHV*OH>uU_TZM,J14z5D3#HKVP51H;JG9B6@5D#,R2V;DHg4K!#5+K{CG5DK<OkSkAmR;J1?U5DK<OkU_H43#DO`=;:M95M(!#~}Great minds think alike~{!#>MJG3#HKV.<d#,R2DSPR;6(3L6H5D95M(!#7qTrN*J2C4;aSP~}kindred spirit ~{R;K5#?~}
~{5Q?(6yDG>dC{QT!0NRK<9JNRTZ!1?VEB8|4s3L6HIO74S3AKHK5D@mPT:M;3RI>+IqTZIqPTCfG05D>uPQ#,6x2;JG5%4?;3RIHKWTIm5DVwLe4fTZ!#51H;#,<{HJ<{VG!#5+W/WS5D6T;0MjH+JG9n1gJu#,2;DK5CwJ2C4!#~}
~{HK2;DSkHK95M(#,1cH%Sk6/No95M(#,Ub8vMFB[L+Nd6OAK!#95M(7VVGPT:MGi8PA=7=Cf#,HK:M3hNo5D=;AwFdJ574S3AKR;VVOV4z2!~} - ~{HKV.<dGi8P5D@dD.#,5+2;DK5CwHK:MHKV.<d2;D95M(#,VAIYTZVGPTIO!#>+Iq6@A"5DHK2;;aQx3hNo@4<DMPGi8P#,?VEB8|;aTZJi1>VP:M9EMy=q@45DVGU_6T;0#,TZRt@VVPUR5=8PGi5DN?=e!#UbP)#,1>VJIO;9JGJtSZHK:MHKV.<d5D=;Aw:M95M(!#~}
~{Be?K:M;t2<K9La3vIg;aFuT<9[Dn?VEB8|6`5XJGN*AKVFT<HK5DWTK=LlPT:MH(A&ErUM#,6x2;JGN*VNAFHK5DDZPD9B6@!#TZNR?4@4#,=|4zRT@4HK5D3eM;8|6`5XT4WT6TWJT45DUy6a#,2;JG5%4?5DH17&95M(!#D>SPVKy9XW"5D!0HK:MHKV.<d2;D95M(!18|JG8vUQ'NJLb#,>MJGUb8vNJLb1>ImR2JG<{HJ<{VG5D#,U}HgNRIOCfV83v5DDGQy!#~}
~{R;5cP!Rb<{#,MrM{2;R*0CDU!#~} - Re: ~{95M(5D@'>3~}posted on 02/10/2004
Alien english. :) - posted on 02/10/2004
or rather, alien chinese? :) Despite what I wrote in my post, I think the post itself ironically serves as a perfect example to Muyu's post, the ultimate difficulty of human communication. :) Which idiots invented so many Chinese input codes anyway?
In my post, I meant to say that regardless of the limit of languages and difficulties of communications, there are still some degree of successful communications among people, if you look at a bigger picture across space and time. Otherwise there's no point for artistic creations and thought preservations in the flow of human civilization of thousands of years. A great thinker or artist often picks up thoughts and ideas from someone in an earlier era and then makes more use of it. This can be considered as an effective communication. Even among ordinary people, there is also the thing called "kindred spirit". So we shouldn't give up hope on communications among and understandings from people.
Then I doubted Muyu's intepretation of Descartes' saying "I think, therefore I am". I thought it shows the awakening of human reasoning power and rationality - the very fact that I am contemplating on my existence shows that I exist - rather than to doubt one's corporeal existence as Muyu interpreted. Also, on Zhuang Tsu's comments on joy of fish, I think it merely demonstrates Zhuang Tsu's sophistry instead of proving how impossible comminucation can be.
About Locke and Hobbes' ideas of social contract, they more appear to me a solution of curbing human instinct of self-preservation and, as a result, the aggressiveness toward others, by applying the Golden Rule. So I have different opinions from Muyu's, that the ideas of social contract were conceived attempting to solve the problems rising from ineffective comminications among people.
Of course, I was raising my questions to Muyu in a mild and discussion tone, in no means to criticize and ridicule his points.
A little explanation In case someone like Linghu was wondering what I said in my previous post of the alien laguage. :)
令胡冲 wrote:
> Alien english. :) - Re: ~{95M(5D@'>3~}posted on 02/11/2004
我这篇文摘主要讲的是沟通的不畅方面,所以就不太顾及另外一面。正象玛雅指出的文章要写得极端些,才有意思。拙作就是力图作点这样的尝试。即使是这样,玛雅也还是嫌我过于周全了。
足下所述的确很有见地,在此谢过。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation